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

September 28, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Sep-28 (PDF)

L100 - Mon 28 Sep 2015 / Lun 28 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 28 September 2015 Lundi 28 septembre 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Health care funding

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Home care

Privatization of public assets

Transportation infrastructure

Health care funding

By-election in Sudbury

Senior citizens

Home care

By-election in Sudbury

Mining industry

Disaster relief

By-election in Sudbury

Climate change

Fatal traffic accident

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Members’ Statements

Gordie Michie

Fort Erie Race Track

Canadian Cancer Survivor Network

Amateur sports champions

Correctional facilities

Dry Stone Festival

Assistance to refugees

Ron Lenyk

Credit Valley Trail

Introduction of Bills

Larry Blake Limited Act, 2015

Capping Top Public Sector Salaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le plafonnement des hauts traitements du secteur public

Petitions

Hydro rates

Renewable energy

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Concussion

Health care funding

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Dental care

Public transit

Landfill

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in the House we have the honour of welcoming a former member, Mr. Gary Fox from Prince Edward–Hastings during the 36th Parliament. Please join me in welcoming him back to Queen’s Park.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We could be talking about the ghost of Gary Fox, but that was my message to you that I’m planning to get in front of you before you step on my—anyway, introduction of guests.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce Krista Klages and Bryce Klages, mom and dad of page captain Eastyn Klages, from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have four friends to introduce this morning. The mayor of Sarnia, Mike Bradley, is with us today, and Whitby councillor Chris Leahy, Brantford councillor Brian Van Tilborg and Katrina Miller from the Keep Hydro Public campaign. Welcome to Queen’s Park and question period this morning.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce the families of two page captains today. Kelly Hu, from the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham—her mother, Feng Shao, is in the members’ gallery this morning, and also page captain Siena Pacheco has her mother, Rosmarie; her father, Luis; her sister Alexia; and grandmother Anna Belli all with us this morning.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Harry Dearden to Queen’s Park today from Cambridge. Harry, welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I have some visitors from back home. My son Michael with his wife, Sabrina, and three children—Kaitlin, Anika and Maddox—are coming to Queen’s Park. We’d better behave.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome all of the members of the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants visiting Queen’s Park today. I invite you to join me, along with all other members, for Physician Assistants Awareness Day in room 230 from 12 noon to 3 o’clock to learn more about the positive impact that our physician assistants are having on patients in Ontario.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome members of the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition—they’re here today lobbying, fighting the good fight for agriculture—with special mention to Matt Bowman, who comes from the great riding of Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and the government House leader for running 89 kilometres this weekend in support of those wonderful police officers we have had across Ontario who passed away. Congratulations. I’m very proud of you.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I believe the students and the teachers from Branksome Hall are here today. I recognize the Hunting Stewart tartan. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The Minister of Health mentioned that the physician assistants are here today. There is one from my area, Stephanie Ruttinger.

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

Although already introduced, I would be remiss if I did not introduce Mr. Brian Van Tilborg, a city councillor in Brantford. Thank you, Brian, for being here, and welcome.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is to the Premier. Criminal charges have now be laid against one of the Premier’s most senior operatives, Gerry Lougheed Jr. The OPP investigations against the apparent contraventions of the Election Act by the Premier’s deputy chief of staff and Gerry Lougheed remain open and ongoing.

Now that charges have been laid, will the Premier set the record straight? Did the Premier instruct either Pat Sorbara or Gerry Lougheed Jr. to offer Andrew Olivier a job or an appointment in exchange for staying out of the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we’re aware of the charges that have been laid against Mr. Lougheed. The police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face any criminal charges. That is also public knowledge now.

I’ve been open with the Legislature, I’ve been open with the media, and I’ve been open with the public about these allegations. We have faith in the process. We have co-operated—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am going to seek order immediately. The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have co-operated fully with the process, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll continue to do so. This matter is now before the courts and I will not be commenting on the situation in Sudbury.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Just because Pat Sorbara will not face criminal charges, it doesn’t mean that she won’t be charged under the Election Act.

In a media interview in mid-December, Gerry Lougheed Jr. confirmed that he spoke with the Premier before he spoke with Andrew Olivier. On the tapes, Mr. Lougheed says, “I come to you on behalf of the Premier.” On the tapes, Pat Sorbara says, “You’ve been directly asked by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to step aside to allow Glenn to have the opportunity uncontested....”

In the eyes of the hard-working people of Ontario, Pat Sorbara’s actions are no different than Gerry Lougheed’s; in fact, they may be worse. Will the Premier tell the people of Ontario what she instructed Lougheed and Sorbara to say and to offer to Andrew Olivier?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I would just remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are no criminal charges that are going to be laid against Pat Sorbara. That is public knowledge.

As far as I know, in terms of the Elections Ontario investigation, it is ongoing. We have no knowledge to the converse of that, and we’ll continue to co-operate with that independent investigation. But in terms of the other questions about the Sudbury by-election, those matters are before the court.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier is going to have to tell the truth at some point. There’s a possibility that this Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the leader to withdraw and to be very cautious of how—things that we can’t say directly, we’re not going to say indirectly.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: The Premier is going to have to be transparent at some point. There is a possibility that this Premier will be subpoenaed to testify. There is a possibility that the deputy chief of staff will be subpoenaed to testify.

The Premier’s office must be held to the highest standard. How can the Premier, in good conscience, continue to evade answering these questions when there are serious criminal allegations of corruption that go to the heart of the highest levels of her office?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have answered questions in this House; I have answered questions with the media. I have been very clear in terms of my involvement in what happened.

There are no criminal charges being laid against my staff person, Pat Sorbara. There is an ongoing investigation in terms of Elections Ontario. But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that at every juncture, I have co-operated. I have worked with the investigation. I will continue to do so.

I have answered those questions, Mr. Speaker. Now there are issues that are before a court, and I won’t comment on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is to the Premier. When the Liberal government couldn’t negotiate a contract with the doctors, they slashed their fees paid to physicians in retaliation. The Liberals have cut $580 million from physician services as a punishment for not agreeing to the government’s deal.

What does this government not understand? This is a cut to patients. They aren’t just punishing doctors; the government is punishing patients in Ontario. The people of Ontario are going to be hurt. The people who are going to be hurt are stroke patients, young families, the elderly—all those in need of Ontario’s medical help and care.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier being so short-sighted? Why does she continue to slash health care funding for front-line health care workers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition is talking about a negotiation. We have a deep respect and admiration for the doctors of this province. We know how critical they are.

I grew up in the family of a general practitioner. My dad has worked—he’s not working now; he’s going to be 90 years old next year. But he practised in this province, and I know how critical primary care physicians are. It’s why we’ve hired thousands more doctors. There are thousands more doctors in this province than there were when we came into office in 2003.

Unfortunately, the Ontario Medical Association rejected the offer that was on the table. A third party, Justice Winkler, came in, looked at the offer and recommended that the OMA accept the offer. They chose not to, so we had to go forward and implement the offer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Rather than blaming hard-working doctors, let’s talk about the facts. The $580-million cut to health care is threatening access to quality and patient-focused care. With 800,000 Ontarians already without a doctor and 140,000 new patients each year in Ontario, these cuts will make it even harder for people to get the care they need: cuts that will lead to the closure of many walk-in clinics, clinics that are visited each day by the very people who don’t have a family doctor. That means those patients will have no choice but to go to emerg, and that means longer wait times at emerg.

The damage from these cuts is being felt in communities large and small. Will the Premier get her priorities straight and stop this assault on front-line health care in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is just raring to answer the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but let me just be clear. Despite the fact that this member was in the federal government at the time when Stephen Harper slashed the Canada Health Transfer—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order, and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Despite the fact that that cut will mean $8 billion less to Ontario over 10 years, we have consistently increased health care funding. Doctors’ salaries and doctors’ compensation in Ontario have gone up 60% under our watch. The average doctor in Ontario bills about $350,000. They’re among the best paid in the country.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, according to the Premier’s own budget, the federal government transferred—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, according to the Premier’s own budget, the federal transfers increased by $652 million, but you only spent $598 million, so you’ve cut $54 million from the health care budget in Ontario. Years of cutting funding to doctors: Two years ago it was $850 million, then it was a $580-million cut earlier this year, and now another $235-million cut.

This has real results in Ontario’s health care delivery. This means the closure of at least six addiction centres just in Toronto alone. It means longer wait times at ERs, family doctors’ offices and clinics. It means 140,000 people struggling to find a family doctor.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is, that maybe instead of $5 million in bonuses to Pan Am execs, $24 million in salaries and benefits for—

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that the member opposite, the leader of the official opposition, wasn’t here under the Mike Harris government when that government slashed health care, closed hospitals and fired thousands of nurses across this province.

It’s true that when we came into government in 2003, we inherited a system that was disrespectful of our doctors. Doctors were leaving the province. Doctors weren’t adequately compensated. We’ve corrected that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We appreciate the work that our doctors do across this province. We increased their compensation from government by 61% over the last decade to the point where they’re among the best paid in Canada, if not in North America, as they should be, and that’s going to continue. The cost of our budget as well is increasing by 1.25% each year. It will continue to increase to represent our doctors well.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last January, at the beginning of her efforts to hide her role and the role of her office in the Sudbury bribery scandal, the Premier issued a statement saying that Mr. Lougheed “is not government or Liberal Party staff. He speaks for himself.” But Mr. Lougheed certainly seemed to think that he was speaking for the Premier, and it’s a bit rich for the Premier to distance herself from a well-known senior Liberal bagman who has raised a lot of money for her campaigns and has raised a lot of money for Mr. Trudeau’s campaign.

Does the Premier still stand by her statement that Mr. Lougheed wasn’t speaking for her or anyone in her office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. Of course we’re aware of the charges that have been laid against Mr. Lougheed. There are no criminal charges that have been laid against my staff person, Pat Sorbara. There is now a case before the courts, and I’m not going to comment further on that.

The leader of the third party knows that I have answered questions in the Legislature; I have answered questions of the media; I’ve been very clear about the incidents around the Sudbury by-election. But I’m not going to litigate a case that is now in front of the courts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has refused to take any responsibility in the Sudbury bribery scandal. But while the Premier is trying to act like she barely even knew Gerry Lougheed, the transcripts say in black and white that Mr. Lougheed was acting “on behalf of the Premier....”

My question to the Premier is this: Did the Premier order the call, and was Mr. Lougheed, in fact, speaking on behalf of the Premier as he claimed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, these are issues that are going to be dealt with in a court. I’m not going to comment any further on them.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier can try to dodge responsibility for this mess, but something simply is not adding up. If the Premier has nothing to hide, she should just say so.

The transcript says very clearly, “They would like to present you options in terms of appointments, jobs, whatever....” On the recording, it certainly seems that “they” are the Premier and Ms. Sorbara. Who ordered the call? Was it the Premier, was it Ms. Sorbara or was it someone else in the Premier’s office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the leader of the third party should maybe look to her deputy leader, who is also a lawyer, and maybe get some legal advice. That advice should be along the lines that she should not be soliciting anybody in this House to interfere in a judicial proceeding. I think that’s a well-known fact. You don’t need to have a law degree to understand that we do not interfere in any kind of investigation or judicial proceeding. It would be highly inappropriate, Speaker.

All these questions that the member opposite is asking are inappropriate. I would suggest to her, respectfully, that she should not be soliciting anybody in this House to interfere in a judicial proceeding.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. This is a Premier who loves to talk about having conversations, and it’s clear from the transcripts of the recorded telephone calls that the Premier, Ms. Sorbara, the member for Sudbury and Mr. Lougheed were all having lots of conversations behind the scenes. There is good reason to believe that every single one of these four people know who it was who ordered Mr. Lougheed to make the call.

Will this Premier show some leadership, Speaker, and allow the people in her office and in her caucus to come forward with what they know about the order to have Mr. Olivier accept a bribe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, there is a process that has unfolded and is unfolding outside this Legislature. I have co-operated with that process; I will continue to do so.

But the fact is that this is not the court. This is not the court where the decisions are going to be made. That process is not in this room, Mr. Speaker. It is happening outside of the Legislature. We will continue to co-operate, Mr. Speaker, as we have done all along.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier of the province of Ontario shouldn’t have to be sworn in by a judge to be up front with the people of Ontario. She has been tying herself in knots to protect herself and Liberal insiders while she keeps the truth from Ontarians. The Premier, Ms. Sorbara, the member for Sudbury and Mr. Lougheed are all in this up to their necks, Speaker.

Does this Premier actually expect Ontarians to believe that no one in her office or her caucus knew about the calls to offer Mr. Olivier a bribe to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, once again there is a reason why we keep our judicial system separate from our political system. The reason is exactly this: We do not try cases in the Legislature. What the leader of the third party is doing is trying to inject politics into a manner that is before the courts. I think the prudent advice to her would be that she should refrain from doing so. She is not a judge; she is not the trier of fact. As far as I know, she’s not a litigator in this case either. All those steps will take place in front of a judge. It’s not a matter of getting sworn before a judge or not.

That is how the system works, and it works like this for a reason—for centuries—it is the right system.

Let’s not mix politics with the judicial proceeding. Let’s respect the process. The Premier has co-operated on this matter from day one.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems that no matter how badly you behave, if you’re a Liberal, you have to be dragged away in cuffs before you’re held accountable in this province. This Premier needs to actually step up and show some responsibility. Someone is not coming clean.

No one believes that the Premier, that her deputy chief of staff and that the member for Sudbury absolutely knew nothing. If the Premier and her staff had nothing to do with this, she should simply say so. She’s the one that promised over and over again that she was going to do things differently this time around for the Liberals. It seems like the same old same old is happening in this chamber.

Why won’t the Premier be up front and honest with Ontarians and tell this House who ordered that call?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier has been honest and up front with the people of Ontario. She remains—she has been open on this matter. She has co-operated—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier has co-operated on this matter from day one, but we are not going to break rules by interfering in a judicial proceeding. I think the leader of the third party should also refrain from doing so. We are not going to comment any further on this matter.

The Premier and this government will remain focused on the mandate that the people of Ontario have given to us. We will continue to focus on building Ontario up. We are going to continue to focus on investing in the skills and talents of Ontarians. We are going to continue to focus on building infrastructure, which is much needed across this province.

Home care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, the Auditor General released a scathing report detailing the CCACs’ failing of our most vulnerable citizens. The CCACs’ failing of the people of Ontario means that this Liberal government has failed the people of Ontario. The Liberals failed when they allowed 40% of funding to go directly to bureaucracy, which is quite unheard of. Every member in this House must have heard a horror story of a patient being denied the CCAC service they deserved.

Why did the minister ignore the cries of those patients in need? Where was the accountability in this government to ensure cost-effective care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I think the member knows that I spoke to the Auditor General’s report last year. I endorsed her report. I accepted it—

Interjection: Last week.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Sorry, last week. I accepted her report. I accepted all of her recommendations, and I indicated that I plan, as the minister, to implement all of the recommendations in her report. But I also mentioned that, since earlier this year, we’ve been very engaged. In fact, the government had asked some time ago for Gail Donner and an expert panel to look at home care for us. She presented her report in January of this year. Since then, we’ve accepted and implemented all of her recommendations as well.

We have a 10-point action plan that reflects her recommendations. We’re going to be working with both reports, implementing both reports in their entirety.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Minister, for far too long this Wynne Liberal government has ignored all those people who were turned away or moved down the wait-list at the CCACs. For five years, this ministry failed to conduct an analysis to show whether service providers could better deliver direct programs. This Liberal government allowed costs to skyrocket without considering the damage to our health care system. It’s time for action, not for studies or high-priced consultants. It’s time for accountability.

Minister, the Auditor General’s report clearly shows that you’re incapable of controlling the bureaucracy in the health care system. Are you not up to the job?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite knows, because he has a background in the health sector—and I appreciate that and enjoy the fact that he will be an effective critic for that and I’m sure for other reasons. But I want to say that we have world-class health providers that are working in our CCACs and with the contracted agencies, providing support to people, roughly 800,000 Ontarians year-round. But I want to point out that the party opposite did vote against our $250-million increase annually for our CCACs, for home and community care, going forward in the next three years.

We’re investing $2.5 billion in our CCACs. We’re implementing. We’re not having another study; we’re not doing another review. We have two good road maps that we’re following, with recommendations from the Auditor General and with recommendations from Gail Donner and her expert panel. We’re implementing her recommendations to make sure that we’re providing the best possible care.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Premier: The Premier says that she has an election mandate from the people to sell off Ontario’s oldest and most important public asset, but Ontarians aren’t buying it. They don’t like being duped. At least 165 Ontario municipalities have passed resolutions since the election opposing the Premier’s sale of Hydro One, and over the weekend a national columnist wrote, “Her decision to privatize Hydro One is a reminder of how flexible—some might say duplicitous—Liberals can be once they gain power.”

Will the Premier stop her duplicity, listen to Ontarians and reverse her reckless, short-sighted plan to sell Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the question from the critic from the third party. They have been crisscrossing the province, meeting with people and flaming them on so-called skyrocketing hydro prices because of broadening ownership.

Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada—not a journalist in any newspaper; the Supreme Court of Canada—upheld the right of the Ontario Energy Board to ensure consumers pay just and reasonable rates for electricity or any other utility, on expenditures like collective bargaining labour agreements.

In a decision Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the long-standing dispute that began after the energy board determined Ontario Power Generation’s labour costs were too high and disallowed the full payment amount requested.

The Supreme Court of Canada says, “The OEB’s mandate is to review the underlying cost structure and make sure the costs that OPG seeks to pass off to customers [through] rates are just and reasonable.” This applies—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, again to the Premier: These 165 municipalities need money for infrastructure. They also know that Hydro One makes money for Ontario. The Hydro One prospectus tells investors to expect cash dividends of $500 million per year. They know that a privatized Hydro One will drive up electricity rates and make it harder to deliver essential municipal services. They know this is a bad deal.

Will the Premier stop ignoring these 165 municipalities and keep Hydro One public?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member wants to ignore a ruling from Supreme Court of Canada, which says that the OEB does have the power and is in fact reducing rates when required to be reduced. Not only with electricity companies: The Ontario Energy Board, just last week, again—a lot of fast-moving news here. The OEB approved decreases in natural gas rates for Enbridge and Union Gas customers.

The OEB is functioning. It’s responsible, it’s one of the best regulatory agencies in North America, and it will control, modify and hold Hydro One to account on rates.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As the member for Brampton West, I know that transit is extremely important to those living in my community. Many of my constituents rely on GO Transit to get to and from work every day, and they tell me that they want to see our government making investments in transit and transportation that truly count.

As part of budget 2015, our government announced improvements to the GO rail network as part of our regional express rail plan. Can the minister please tell members of this House what kind of service improvements Ontarians can expect under this plan?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Brampton West, not only for his advocacy and the question today, but for continuing to be a great champion for all of Brampton.

As announced in budget 2015 and as the member mentioned, our government is making the single largest infrastructure investment in this province’s history. We are investing $13.5 billion to improve the entire GO Transit network as part of our regional express rail plan. As part of that plan, we’ll be giving those living in the GTHA new travel options with faster and more frequent service, and electrification on core segments of the GO rail network.

Specifically, that means that these investments will more than double peak service and quadruple off-peak service compared to today, reduce journey times for some cross-region transit trips by as much as 50%, and give a much wider range of travel options for those living in and around the GTHA.

Progress is already being made, but our government will continue to work with Metrolinx to deliver on this important plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I want to thank the minister for his response. As the minister noted, our government is making the single largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, and I know that those living in my community will be pleased to hear that they will be seeing service improvements as part of our regional express rail plan. But I also know that those living in my community do not want to wait 10 years to see these improvements.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell members of this House if those living in Brampton can expect to see increased service sooner than 10 years from now?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member again for the follow-up question. We expect that over the next 10 years, weekly trips across the entire GO rail network will grow from the current 1,500 to nearly 6,000. Importantly, we’re not waiting 10 years to deliver important results. Earlier this month, I was happy to announce that we have already added 14 new train trips on the Kitchener line between Mount Pleasant GO station and Union Station. This is an investment that will directly help those living in the community of Brampton along this particular line.

It’s further proof that our government’s commitment to making daily commutes and quality of life better for Ontarians is happening, whether they live in York region or, frankly, whether they live in Thunder Bay, where we build most of our transit vehicles, or in Brampton. Credit to this Premier and her leadership for getting the job done.

Health care funding

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. The true price of the many Liberal scandals is hitting home in northern Ontario. To pay for their gas plant scandal or their smart meter scandal, this government is firing nurses. Hundreds of nurses have been fired in Sudbury, Timmins, the Soo and my hometown of North Bay. A recent Sudbury Star headline reads “Nurse Layoffs Jeopardize Lives.” Or the North Bay Nugget headline: “Deaths Will Rise if Nursing Cuts Not Opposed.” The Liberal government just fired 158 health care workers at the North Bay hospital. Speaker, that’s on top of the 197 they fired over the last three years.

When will this government come clean and admit they are firing nurses to pay for their scandals?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the member opposite specifically about his hospital in North Bay. He does know, because we’ve talked about this, that the funding in that hospital has increased by over $100 million since we came into office.

He also knows, and I took some time to detail this with him because I believe it’s important, that the LHIN and the hospital are still having discussions. There has been no decision. There isn’t an official plan going forward by the hospital that has been approved by the LHIN. The LHIN and the hospital are in those negotiations, working first and foremost to make sure there will be no negative impact on patient care.

I’m confident that if we give that time and space to the LHIN and to the hospital to have those negotiations, to build that plan together—as well, the ministry has been working diligently with both parties to make sure that we’re prepared to step in where we need to to make sure that quality of care is maintained.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The Auditor General told us that the consequences of Liberal spending would “crowd out” the programs Ontarians depend on. Add the cost of their scandals and we now see what this government is doing. Waste a billion dollars on the Ornge scandal? Fire 100 nurses in Timmins and the Soo. Waste a billion dollars on the gas plant scandal? Fire 100 nurses in Sudbury. Waste a couple of billion dollars on smart meters? Fire a couple of hundred nurses in North Bay. Get caught paying $10,000 to have computer files deleted? Don’t worry; just fire another nurse up north.

Speaker, how many more nurses and front-line health care workers is this government going to fire to pay for their next scandal?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite of course has his own list; here’s mine. That opposition party in the last election promised to fire 100,000 workers in the broader public sector, many of them health care workers. That party opposite, when they were in government, fired thousands of nurses and closed dozens of hospitals. We’ve hired since we came into office to correct their mistakes and the damage that they have done—have hired more than 24,000 nurses. More than 10,000 of those are registered nurses. And, of course, Sudbury, the very first location in this province to have a nurse-practitioner-led clinic, the first of 25 that exist in this province today.

That’s our commitment. It’s not the commitment of your party. In fact, we’ve corrected over the last decade the errors—

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

Stop the clock. As you have been reminded, this is the chair that you speak to and not through. This is the chair that you speak to when asking questions and delivering answers.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier. Your Liberal operative, Mr. Lougheed, who has done a lot of work for both yourself and Justin Trudeau, has said that he’d been trying for years to get Mr. Thibeault to run in the Ontario Legislature. In the end, there was just one problem, and that was that there was a Mr. Olivier who wanted to run for that nomination. Surely this hurdle must have come up in your discussion with Mr. Thibeault. Our question simply is this: Can you confirm that you actually talked about the problems in regard to the nomination with Mr. Thibeault before he ran?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, Speaker, I’m not sure the member heard my response earlier. I will restate that I think the opposition should not be soliciting the government to interfere in a judicial proceeding. It would be highly inappropriate. Our system ensures that there is clear delineation between the political side—the legislative branch and the executive branch—and the judicial, the court system. I think the member will agree with me that it would be very inappropriate for any member of this House to interfere in this matter or speak to it. We’ll let the judicial proceedings continue and have the facts come out and deliberations made at that stage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Through you, Speaker, back to the Premier: No, I don’t agree with that. The facts are, Mr. Thibeault had discussions with a number of Liberal operatives, including the Premier, in regard to running in the Sudbury by-election. Our question is a very simple one: Did the Premier or anyone else have discussions with Mr. Thibeault vis-à-vis the problems they were going to have when it came to the nomination process, yes or no?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: With all due respect to the member opposite, he should know that in our system, facts are not litigated in the chamber of the House. There’s a reason that a judge is referred to as the trier of fact. It’s the judge’s job to determine the facts.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the member opposite should listen to his deputy leader. He’s pleading with them, he’s begging them not to ask these questions. I think they’re jeopardizing his law licence as a result by not heeding his advice on this matter. This is a judicial proceeding. We should not be interfering, and we will not be commenting any further on it.

Senior citizens

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. The oldest members of the baby boom generation in North America turned 65 in 2011. By the year 2036, our province’s older adult population will more than double to 4.1 million seniors. This major change is going to affect every jurisdiction in Canada, and it’s presenting both challenges and opportunities for every community here in Ontario.

Minister, you recently launched the Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant, which is going to help build more accessible and inclusive communities across the province. This funding is very important, and it’s been well received by municipalities and organizations across the province, including in my riding of Kitchener Centre, where the city of Kitchener received $50,000.

Can the minister please inform this House how this new grant is going to help improve the lives of seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre.

Working together with municipalities to invest in age-friendly communities is part of our government’s economic commitment to help build Ontario up, and also to build a better Ontario for our seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It’s very encouraging to see the steps that we are taking to actively support municipalities across Ontario as they plan to accommodate seniors to contribute and stay active in all aspects of life.

In my community, as mentioned, the municipality is receiving $50,000 for a project that’s going to conduct a needs assessment and develop an action plan to address any identified needs and gaps for seniors in Kitchener. This project is also directed at ensuring that my community is not only friendly for older adults but also for persons with all abilities and of all ages. We want Kitchener to continue being as vibrant and healthy as possible.

I’ve already received lots of positive feedback from the city and from local seniors’ groups that are expressing interest and gratitude for this funding.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on other initiatives that we have undertaken to develop more age-friendly communities across Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Again, thanks to the member.

Our collective challenge is to ensure that our communities grow to meet the evolving needs of every person, regardless of their age or ability. This is why age-friendly planning is so important, and it is why we will continue to work with municipalities, seniors’ organizations and community partners as well.

Ontario is investing an additional $200,000 in an outreach initiative program to provide free assistance across the province to communities that are interested in adopting age-friendly planning principles.

We have developed an invaluable planning guide to provide essential information to municipalities on the development, implementation and evaluation of plans for age-friendly communities. As well, we have been partnering with the University of Waterloo, the Ontario Interdisciplinary Council for Aging and Health, and the Seniors Health Knowledge Network to lead this particular outreach.

We will continue to find new ways to serve our seniors.

Home care

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Premier this morning. Premier, one of the most frequent issues that comes up in my constituency office in Belleville is home care—or the lack of it. Patients and their families are often on the receiving end of much less care than what the CCAC has originally promised them. Last week, we learned from the Auditor General why.

The minister’s probably going to pop up like a Whac-A-Mole and tell us that he’s spending millions more on home care, but what the Auditor General told us last week is that more and more money is being sunk into administration and sunshine list salaries, and less and less is going into actual health care on the front lines.

Premier, can you explain why only 47% of people who need to see a nurse in the first 24 hours after leaving hospital are actually seeing one of the home care workers, and why administrative salaries have gone up by 27%?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. It is unacceptable, that figure that he just described about the rapid-response nurses. It’s so important, when individuals do transition out of hospital, that they can expect to receive that care when they arrive home, to support them. We will be working with our LHINs and our CCACs to make sure we can improve that, to set targets and to measure the success, so we actually see that improvement in that area.

I had said last week as well, with the Auditor General, that we accept all of her recommendations; they’re equally important. She also has an important recommendation number 5, which says essentially that we should review the entire model of delivery of home care to Ontario citizens. We plan on not having another review. We’ve been spending a long time looking at this. We have Gail Donner’s report from earlier this year to benefit from. We’re taking the whole set of recommendations and moving forward to make sure that we’re providing the best possible care we can for these vulnerable individuals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, with all due respect, and back to the Premier, you’ve had 12 years to figure this out. You’re dumping millions of dollars into the salaries of people who don’t see patients.

Katie Hollister-Lobe in my riding is one such case. She was originally told that 90 hours of care per month would be provided to her mother, who has end-stage dementia. That was reduced first to 80 hours per month, and is now being reduced all the way from 90 down to 40 hours a month. Katie and her husband had managed to cobble together some additional care through community care programs that they pay for, but that barely covers the hours that the CCAC originally promised her mother. They may have to leave their jobs. They may have to move.

Speaker, can the minister explain why Katie’s mother, who spent 42 years as a nurse, deserved to have her care cut so that more money can be put into administration, into the bank accounts of those working in administration, executives at CCACs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think most of us know that CCACs were actually a creation of the Conservative Party in the late 1990s. We actually saved a significant amount of money when we took the PCs’ 43 CCACs that they created around the province and reduced them to 14, so that they were coordinated well with the LHINs, as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are you saying they’re a bad thing? Are you going to disband them? What are you going to do? Don’t blame the Tories for your mess.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: After the Progressive Conservative Party created those 43 CCACs in the 1990s, in fact, these two reports this year are really the only substantive reports that have been done by anyone of our CCACs in that 20-year period. I welcome the recommendations. We plan on implementing all of them, Mr. Speaker.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has stated that her deputy chief of staff has been cleared of any charges or any wrongdoings by the OPP. However, that’s not true. It’s been made explicitly clear that the investigation is still ongoing. Charges may still be filed against her staff under the provincial Election Act, and she may very well be at the centre of the scandal as the person who directed Mr. Lougheed to make the call for the Premier.

Ontarians deserve honesty, and it shouldn’t take the courts to get it. Will the Premier please be up front with Ontarians and address the allegations of bribery in her office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just correct what the member opposite said. What I said is that Pat Sorbara’s counsel have told her that there will be no criminal charges laid against her. I also said that as far as I know, the investigation by Elections Ontario is ongoing. So I just want to correct what the member said.

We have co-operated with the investigations, we will continue to co-operate with the investigations, but there is now an issue before the courts, and I will not comment on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier is in fact quoted as saying, “I never believed that my staff did anything wrong.” But the reality is that her deputy chief of staff is still under ongoing investigation. How is it that the Premier had no knowledge that her staff and a high-ranking Liberal campaign team member were engaging in illegal activity during the by-election? It has taken an investigation and criminal charges laid by the OPP to uncover corruption in the Premier’s office. How could the Premier be so unaware of this alleged illegal activity in her own office by her own staff?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, Speaker, I’m really surprised by the line of questioning from the deputy leader, who is an esteemed member of the same profession that I share, as a lawyer, who knows really well that court proceedings must not be interfered with. I’m sure he has advised clients in the past to do the same, to make sure that they let the courts decide if a matter is under a court proceeding.

I think that in all the questions that he has been asking, he is essentially soliciting the government, the Premier, to move away from that very well-known principle in our system where we keep the political system separate from our legal system.

I would urge the member opposite that we should focus on real issues that matter to Ontarians, issues like building our communities up, making sure that we continue to build infrastructure, and ensure that our province’s economy is growing every single day.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question this morning is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Ontario is a leading jurisdiction for the exploration and production of minerals in Canada, and a major player across the world. The mining and exploration industry is an incredibly important contributor to our provincial economy. This is particularly clear in my community of Sudbury, with a rich history in mining, Mr. Speaker.

While lower metal prices are having an impact, the forecast for mineral production in Sudbury is bright. The area is home to several of Ontario’s key advanced mineral exploration projects.

Our government continues to invest in this important sector and ensure that the mining sector remains a vibrant part of our province’s economy. Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister inform the House on the status of the mining industry in Ontario and its significance to our provincial economy?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Sudbury for the question. He’s certainly one of the strongest advocates for the mining sector in the Ontario Legislature. Thank you so much.

We are indeed proud of the fact that Ontario remains a leading jurisdiction for the exploration and the production of minerals in Canada, and a major player across the world. We have world expertise in mine financing, geology, engineering, the advantages of a strong economy, competitive business costs, and a world-class research and development environment as well.

The bottom line is pretty interesting: In 2003, exploration expenditures in the province of Ontario were $219 million. In 2014, despite some of the challenges in the sector, they were over $500 million, which is great news.

The value of mineral production: In 2003, mineral production in the province was $5.7 billion—a lot. In 2014, it was over $11 billion, a record-setting performance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: It is part of our government’s plan to build Ontario up by creating a dynamic and supportive environment where businesses can prosper. Ontario is a leader not only in the Canadian mining industry but also globally. There are hundreds of international companies in Ontario engaging in mineral exploration, and hundreds more in the supplies and services sector who benefit from that investment.

The total number of direct jobs in mineral production was 26,000 in 2014. There are also an additional 50,000 jobs associated with manufacturing and processing. The mineral sector is the largest private sector employer of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I know that the minister recently celebrated the success of Detour Gold at their site just outside of Cochrane. Can the minister please elaborate on the status of the gold sector in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s a great follow-up. Just last week, I was joined by a number of municipal leaders and aboriginal leaders on an exciting trip to Detour Gold’s site, just a couple of hundred kilometres from Cochrane, as they poured their one-millionth ounce of gold. That, of course, was only 30 months after their first gold bar in February 2013. It was a tremendous experience to see them pour the molten gold. Only moments after, I was holding that solid gold bar in my hand. They wouldn’t let me take it with me.

Let’s put our province’s gold sector in perspective. Approximately two thirds of the exploration spending has gone towards exploration for gold in 2014, with similar spending expected this year. Much of this spending is at key gold projects in traditional gold camps across northern Ontario.

We’ve got a great story to tell the mining sector. Certainly, we’re very, very proud of the strong role Ontario is playing.

Disaster relief

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I hope you will remember that in 2013, municipalities in Ontario were hit with a major ice storm that took out hydro for days and resulted in damages that cost millions of dollars.

Almost two years later, many municipalities are still waiting for part of the emergency support they were promised. When asked why this was taking so long, the parliamentary assistant of municipal affairs and housing blamed the municipalities.

Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing tell us whether he agrees that the delay is the fault of municipalities, or whether the provincial government should take the blame?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Someone once said, “No one’s guilty but everybody’s responsible.” I wouldn’t want to tag responsibility for the slowness of any system on anyone, especially the federal government, that has to clear the applications and is much more stringent in terms of the requirements, which played some role. I wouldn’t want to do that in this House, because that would be unfair.

There were some struggles. Municipalities had to document their real costs. There was a procedure set out to allow that to happen. We followed that procedure, and there was a lot of money delivered to municipalities to assist, money that we hadn’t budgeted for but still delivered.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Partial funding after two years is not the emergency support these municipalities had been promised. The government took over nine months to even create an application and waited until November to do the training—that’s the following year.

We all know municipalities went to great lengths to get those applications done last winter and get them in, and with that, you will know municipalities are not the problem with this program.

Would the minister apologize for his parliamentary assistant’s attempt to blame municipalities, and apologize for his failure to deliver the emergency support municipalities need now and yesterday, not—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We would much rather point direction than fingers. I’m not going to apologize on behalf of municipalities for whatever time it took for them to get their material together. We respect municipalities; they work hard.

By the way, let me just take a minute to compliment the EMS workers and the hydro workers and all the others who worked tirelessly to recover from that ice storm. It was something that befell our province, which we didn’t anticipate, but when push came to shove, we all worked together to respond appropriately.

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. The people of Sudbury know who Mr. Gerry Lougheed Jr. is. They know he is a Liberal fundraiser for the Premier and, right now, for Justin Trudeau. They know that he is a senior Liberal insider who does the bidding of the provincial and federal parties in Sudbury and beyond.

The Premier was given a chance to show some integrity and show that she is the Premier for all of Ontario. Instead, why has the Premier consistently put well-connected Liberal insiders ahead of the interests of the people of Sudbury? When will the interests of the good people of Sudbury actually come first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I would restate that what the member is asking about speaks to a matter that is before the courts, and it would be highly inappropriate to interfere in the matter.

This government continues to work hard and has invested heavily in improving the lives of the people of Sudbury when it comes to investing in our health care and education. In Sudbury, the investments have been at record levels over the last 12 years, and we’re very proud of everything that we have done in Sudbury, the work that our former member of provincial Parliament, cabinet Minister Rick Bartolucci, did on behalf of the people of Sudbury, and the work that the current member for Sudbury continues to do on behalf of Sudbury.

That community is much better off over the last 12 years in investment in our health care and education system than ever, and we stand by that record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: Everybody in Sudbury knows what role Gerry Lougheed Jr. played in the Sudbury by-election for the Premier and that he is playing right now for Mr. Trudeau. He is a senior Liberal insider, and he does whatever is necessary for the Liberal Party. In all of the conversations between the Premier, Mrs. Sorbara, Mr. Thibeault and Mr. Lougheed, not once did what is best for the people of Sudbury ever come up—not once.

Will the Premier admit that through all of this, it has always been about what is best for the Liberal Party and never about what is best for the good people of Sudbury? My question is simple: When will the interests of the good people of Sudbury come ahead of the interests of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This government and this Premier will continue to stand by all communities across this province, including Sudbury. We have invested an incredible amount when it comes to health care and infrastructure in Sudbury. That is why, after the great work that Rick Bartolucci did in that community, that community once again in a by-election voted for the current member from Sudbury, Glenn Thibeault. Why? Because they supported a government that has continued to invest in Sudbury and who has always put the needs and wants of the Sudbury community up front.

That is why we have somebody who has devoted his life serving Sudbury and now is a member of the government and continues to serve that community.

We will not leave Sudbury behind. We’ll continue to make sure that Sudbury is ahead and a priority for this government.

Climate change

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Over this summer our government hosted the Climate Summit of the Americas, from July 7 to July 9. Like many Ontarians, constituents in my riding of Ottawa South are concerned about climate change and greenhouse gas pollution. They’re worried about what kind of world their children and their grandchildren will be left with if we don’t take strong action on climate change. There is frustration at the lack of strong action on climate change from national governments, and in particular from their federal government.

Speaker, through you, could the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change inform the House about the outcomes of the Climate Summit of the Americas and their importance as part of Ontario’s leadership in fighting climate change?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Ottawa South for this and for his leadership on this issue.

The results of the summit were quite extraordinary. We had 22 members of the Brazilian, US, Mexican and Canadian federations sign on to an agreement and now committed to enough emission reductions between now and 2030—equivalent to the annual emissions in one year of the United States.

As a matter of fact, Governor Brown and I two days ago were standing on a stage in New York City, inducting 14 more members from the Americas into this group, doubling the number of countries.

The United Nations framework on climate change was so taken with this that they have now set aside a day as a result of these efforts, for the first time, to bring what are called subnational or infranational governments into the formal UN reduction strategy. This was an enormous accomplishment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: My question again is back to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I’d like to thank him for updating us on the success we had in bringing leaders from across the Americas together to take action on this important issue.

Increasingly, provinces and states are providing leadership on climate change, especially where national governments have failed to take meaningful action. In Ontario, we beat our 2014 greenhouse gas target of 6% below 1990 levels. Ontario is continuing to demonstrate leadership on climate change. It was announced in April that we will be moving forward with a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas pollution while keeping Ontario’s industries competitive.

Speaker, through you, could the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change inform the House on what the commitments of the climate action statement mean and why subnational action on climate change is so important?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: One of the other things that came up when I was at the UN last week during Climate Week—what came up often, over and over again, was the incredible leadership of Premier Wynne, Premier Couillard and Jerry Brown. When I was speaking with Christiana Figueres, one of the things that came out of that was that on the first day of the summit, Undersecretary Lacy from Mexico committed the Mexican government to work with California, Quebec and Ontario to create a carbon market across America. That is viewed as one of the most important steps to securing it.

But I also want to thank members opposite: the member for Huron–Bruce and the member for Toronto–Danforth, who attended and participated and have been working, I think, to elevate this above partisan politics. Because it really goes to the question from the member from Oxford: We’re going to face more flood events like in Burlington and more damage like we saw on GO Transit. We will see many more years where we lose 80% of our apple crop and where things like ice storms cost the public. That’s why—

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

Fatal traffic accident

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I wonder if we could have a moment’s silence for the grandfather and the three children that were killed in a horrible accident yesterday at Kirby Road and Kipling Avenue, in York region, and just reflect on this incredible tragedy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence upon the tragedy. Do we agree? Agreed.

Could I ask all members in the House and all visitors to please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Visitors

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Speaker. In the west public gallery this morning, we have members of the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition. They will be having meetings at Queen’s Park today and hosting a reception in room 228 later this afternoon.

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to introduce two members of the public from my riding of Burlington who are in the gallery today, members of the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants, here for a luncheon reception: Deniece O’Leary, president of the Ontario

chapter of the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants, and Julie Kasperski, vice-president of the Ontario

chapter of the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment on a point of order.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Again, on a point of order, my apologies—I just wanted to recognize the very bright young girls from Branksome Hall who were here until a few minutes ago. These are soon-to-be extraordinary young women and leaders, and it was very great to have them here in the House today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we move into our deferred votes, I’m going to recommend to the House and to all members, if your visitors don’t show up during introductions, that if you know they’re coming, you might want to do a pre-introduction during the time allotted for introductions. That allows us to continue with the

schedule that we have got established. You would be helping us in our agreed-upon process by the House leaders. If there is a change to be made, it must be made by them.

Deferred Votes

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities / Projet de loi 9, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l’environnement pour exiger la cessation de l’utilisation du charbon pour produire de l’électricité dans les installations de production.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On December 2, 2014, Mr. Murray moved second reading of Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Patrick

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hudak, Tim

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Jones, Sylvia

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLeod, Lisa

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 95; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 2, 2015, the bill is ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Gordie Michie

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate a young Parapan Am Games athlete from my riding, Gordie Michie. A proud member of the St. Thomas Jumbo Jets Swim Team, Gordie brought home several medals from the Toronto 2015 Parapan Am Games that were held this summer. Michie made Canada and our community proud when he won gold during the 100-metre men’s backstroke. He went on to bring home silver in the 200-metre individual men’s medley, bronze in the 200-metre men’s freestyle, and concluded with another bronze in the 100-metre men’s breaststroke.

It is very impressive to see such determination and ambition in Gordie. What an honour it is to travel to our province’s capital to compete for our great country.

On behalf of the residents of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to thank Gordie for all of his hard work and tireless training efforts that brought him to this incredible achievement. It is a privilege to represent Team Canada, and I hope Gordie’s steadfast efforts will lead him to many more successes on the road to Rio in 2016.

Fort Erie Race Track

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to use my time today to offer my congratulations to the Fort Erie Race Track; to their CEO, Jim Thibert; and the whole team for having another record-breaking year.

Last year at the track they had two days with over $1 million in wagers. That was record-breaking compared to the first 117 years. This year they blew that out of the water. This year they had six days with over $1 million in wagers, including a day when they had nearly $2 million.

It’s not just that betting numbers are up. The attendance at the track is up; food sales are up; the number of programs sold at the track is up; every area of the track is beating expectations.

For having the biggest year that anyone has ever seen at the Fort Erie Race Track, I’d like to offer Jim, his staff, and all the unionized workers congratulations.

I can’t speak about the Fort Erie Race Track without bringing up the slots. Not only has this government taken away the slots at the Fort Erie Race Track; they’ve also excluded them from the surrounding gaming zone, costing hundreds of people their jobs in my riding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a track that, year after year, breaks its own records, and year after year exceeds its performance goals. But this government refuses to help the track and all the people who make a living out of it.

Three years ago, the Premier committed to integrate horse racing with the OLG, including gaming, which would bring the slots back to Fort Erie. The racetrack has met their end of the bargain, but where has this government been?

Fort Erie has seven racing days left. I would like to ask all the members here to come to the Fort Erie Race Track.

Canadian Cancer Survivor Network

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: On September 16, I had the honour of hosting the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network reception here at Queen’s Park. This is the second time I have hosted the reception, and what a great turnout. Thank you to everyone who came. As a survivor of cancer and a supporter of the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network, I know the importance of receptions and events like this, which help raise awareness so that critical research can be done to help combat this disease.

At the reception, we had the privilege to hear stories from three men who had survived prostate cancer. Their stories were enlightening and very emotional. I think that those of us who were present can agree that we all learned a lesson about how important our health is and how critical it can be to make sure you have regular checkups with your doctor.

My brother, just last year, was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and I’m happy to say his prognosis is good. Some people are not so fortunate.

The Canadian Cancer Survivor Network works to empower collaborative action by cancer patients, families and communities to identify and work to remove barriers to optimal care. They ensure that cancer survivors have access to education programs and have opportunities to have their voices heard in planning and implementing an optimal health care system.

Once again, I was very happy to host this reception, and I would like to thank the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network for all the great work they do.

Amateur sports champions

Mr. Michael Harris: While it’s always an honour to speak about the great folks in Waterloo region, I’m especially proud after a summer sports season that saw so many of our young people achieve so much.

I’ll start with the New Hamburg Midget Heat, who went 12 and 0 to win the gold at the under-18 men’s Canadian fast pitch championship in New Brunswick, defeating my seatmate’s Tweed team.

Speaking of perfect records, the Kitchener Panthers seven-and-eight-year-old minor rookie baseball team came about as close to perfection as you can get. The Panthers went 61 and 1 this season, completing their dominance with a 13-5 victory over Leaside to win the Ontario Baseball Association’s provincial championships in Kitchener.

On the soccer pitch, it was our under-14 Woolwich Wolfpack girls rolling to victory at the Ontario Cup, defeating the Brampton Brams United Rebels 3-0 in the final.

Ontario Cup honours also went to the under-16 Kitchener 99As, who dropped the King City Royals 3-2 after going into halftime down 2-1. Never count the people from Waterloo region out, Speaker.

Best of luck to the Wolfpack in Kitchener as they head to the Canadian championships in St. John’s, Newfoundland, and Surrey, BC.

Meantime, Kitchener-Waterloo United FC sit on top of their soccer world following a 4-3 defeat of the New York Red Bulls for the Professional Development League championship.

And I would be remiss, Speaker, if I didn’t mention Kitchener’s Mandy Bujold, who made us all so proud in taking home boxing gold at the Pan Am Games.

We’re proud of all of them and thank them for their championship efforts.

Correctional facilities

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I had the chance to visit some of our jails and correctional facilities during our summer intersession, and I look forward to continuing those visits.

Our jails cannot be ignored. Our correctional officers, staff and nurses cannot be ignored. Our inmates cannot be ignored, and we cannot continue this out of sight out of mind mentality. We cannot pretend there isn’t a crisis in corrections.

Our correctional system is full of safety concerns for those who live and work in it. Chronic understaffing means that jails are in lockdowns more often and inmates are stuck in their cells. This makes for an even higher-stress environment than you can imagine. Constant overcrowding means that people sleep on mats on the floor. It means that infirmaries are being used as cells and not for care.

Correctional officers and probation and parole officers are among our first and constant responders who deal with stress, threat, danger and trauma on a regular and ongoing basis. Jails should be a safe place to live and work.

Mr. Speaker, here’s just one example of something to address: Metal detectors don’t pick up ceramic blades or most of what gets into our jails. So when is this government going to commit to safety and commit to scanners that will do the job?

The more weapons, the more overcrowding, the more stress, the more danger for everyone living and working in the facilities. The less this government supports our system, the more it breaks down.

Our shiny new P3 jails have been in the news for a number of reasons. Glass that breaks shouldn’t be used in our jails. Locks that can be unlocked shouldn’t be used in our jails. Pieces of the building should not break off easily to be used as weapons.

This is a government that has allowed shortcuts to happen, so when are they going to address this crisis in corrections?

Dry Stone Festival

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I rise today to applaud the 2015 international Dry Stone Festival that was held on Amherst Island this last weekend. Amherst Island holds the greatest concentration of historic drystone walls and fences in Canada. Some are close to 200 years old, and most were built by Irish settlers.

The festival was a great success due to the passionate and tireless commitment of organizers Andrea Cross, Dry Stone Canada and the Dry Stone Wall Association of Ireland, and, of course, an army of volunteers and over 30 drystone wallers from very far.

Drystone wallers are sculptors guided by nature’s canvas. The 450-million-year-old blocks they coax and coerce into long-lasting art forms are reminders of our historical connections to the landscape.

The festival celebrated Irish heritage and will boost local tourism and the local economy through the creation of a new, year-round attraction. Indeed, it is the world’s first attempt to mimic the ancient, mystical, Mayan-Celtic lunar solar stone calendars of early civilization. I will never forget the moment when we saw the sun break through the clouds and shine on a wall behind. Absolutely fantastic.

I am so proud of our government’s support for the festival throug a $73,000 tourism initiative grant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merci. Meegwetch.

Assistance to refugees

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Today I would like to recognize just a few of the many communities, church groups, service organizations, art organizations, businesses and individual citizens in Perth–Wellington who are coming together to assist in the Syrian refugee crisis. Those groups include the city of Stratford and the Stratford Festival. They have partnered to raise the funds necessary to sponsor several families from Syria and help them settle into the city of Stratford.

They formed a steering committee comprised of a local city councillor, interested residents, members of the faith community and members of the council of churches. Together, this committee has set out to raise $225,000 to help re-settle a minimum of five families.

I would also like to recognize the Mennonite Central Committee for its outstanding work on this issue. With their history and expertise in supporting refugees, it’s no wonder Stratford is working with this reputable organization. MCC will also be opening a gift registry so that local residents can make donations.

The Stratford Festival is also doing its part. The festival will be donating funds from a performance to the fundraising effort. They expect to raise $20,000 in a single evening. I would encourage anyone interested in more information about this performance to contact the festival directly.

Tomorrow, a public information session is being held in Stratford city auditorium at 7 p.m.

Again, thank you to our community leaders and partners for coming together to support this important, worthy cause.

Ron Lenyk

Mr. Bob Delaney: Mississauga lost one of its most prominent business people and one of its biggest boosters, most recognizable faces and most-liked neighbours in September. Ron Lenyk, publisher of our newspaper, the Mississauga News, passed away following heart failure. Ron served 31 years as publisher of the Mississauga News. He left in 2008 to be a vice-president of Torstar Corp., going on to become chief executive officer of Mississauga’s Living Arts Centre in 2011.

Reflecting the Canada that Ron helped build, he was born in postwar West Germany in a displaced persons camp. He came to Canada with his parents in 1949 at three years old, landing in Nova Scotia’s famous Pier 21.

Ron was married with two children and is survived by his wife of 45 years, Olga; daughter, Trina and her husband, Jason Christie, and their daughter, Madison; and son, Terry, and his wife, Taylor Williamson.

There was scarcely a cause or a charity in Mississauga that Ron didn’t support or help out with. Ron Lenyk leaves a big legacy and always expressed confidence in the ability of our city’s people to fill shoes of any size. We are a better city for having Ron Lenyk among us in the city of Mississauga.

Credit Valley Trail

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I rise today to share the news from the great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South of the Credit Valley Trail. On September 11, Friends of the Greenbelt announced $100,000 to help Credit Valley Conservation and partners to bring to life a 110-kilometre trail that will stretch from Port Credit in Mississauga to Orangeville.

Each year, Ontario invests $130 million to support over 80,000 kilometres of trails—trails that link unique communities and green spaces, and encourage people of all ages to explore their natural environment and be physically active. The Credit Valley Trail will also boost Peel region’s local economy by drawing visitors and tourists.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, I know the trail will create a stronger connection between urbanites and their natural environment. Awareness of our natural surroundings leads to a better understanding of the human impact on the environment and of our undeniable role in climate change.

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

Introduction of Bills

Larry Blake Limited Act, 2015

Mrs. Martow moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr27,

An Act to revive Larry Blake Limited.

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): Pursuant to standing order 86, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills.

Capping Top Public Sector Salaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le plafonnement des hauts traitements du secteur public

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to cap the top public sector salaries / Projet de loi 124, Loi plafonnant les hauts traitements du secteur public.

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.

M. Gilles Bisson: Le projet de loi a comme but de mettre une limite-plafond de deux fois le salaire de la première ministre pour n’importe quel dirigeant d’une entreprise publique.

What I just said is that the bill has as its aim to cap the salary of those people running our public institutions at two times the rate of what the Premier’s salary is. I look forward to that debate.

Petitions

Hydro rates

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

“Whereas the Green Energy Act has driven up the cost of electricity in Ontario due to unrealistic subsidies for certain energy sources, including the world’s highest subsidies for solar power; and

“Whereas this cost is passed on to ratepayers through the global adjustment, which can account for almost half of a ratepayer’s hydro bill; and

“Whereas the high cost of energy is severely impacting the quality of life of Ontario’s residents, especially fixed-income seniors; and

“Whereas it is imperative to remedy Liberal mismanagement in the energy sector by implementing immediate reforms detailed in the Ontario PC white paper Paths to Prosperity—Affordable Energy;

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

“To immediately repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009, and all other statutes that artificially inflate the cost of electricity with the aim of bringing down electricity rates and abolishing expensive surcharges such as the global adjustment and debt retirement charges.”

I fully support it and will send it with page Grace.

Renewable energy

Mr. Todd Smith: I present this on behalf of hundreds of people in the Marmora and Lake area.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture has protected class 3 agricultural land from development for the purposes of projects under the Green Energy Act; and

“Whereas the United Nations has declared the vital importance soil plays in human civilization and protection of this vital resource; and

“Whereas the solar energy facility, SunEdison Cordova Solar Project, planned for Ledge Road, Clemenger Road and Twin Sister Road, in the municipality of Marmora and Lake will occupy agricultural land that has previously been protected against development under the Green Energy Act;

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

“That the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs take the necessary steps to ensure that projects, including the SunEdison Cordova Solar Project, that are on protected agricultural land are protected from large-scale, industrial energy development.”

I agree with this, will sign it and send it to the table with page Gabriel.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from people across Durham, including Lynn Odinski.

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another wrong choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition, affix my name to it and send it with Krishaj.

Lung health

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I have a petition that is addressed 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 this figure is estimated to rise to more than $80 billion seven short years from now;

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

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

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

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

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have a payroll tax petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Liberal government has brought forward a payroll tax in the form of a mandatory Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP); and

“Whereas the Liberal government has not conducted nor released a cost-benefit analysis of this new payroll tax; and

“Whereas internal Ministry of Finance documents show that the Liberals are aware that the ORPP will increase the cost of doing business in Ontario and kill jobs in the province; and

“Whereas a McKinsey and Co. survey shows that more than four out of every five Canadians already save enough for their retirement; and

“Whereas the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has stated that a majority of its members would have to lay off workers; and

“Whereas the government’s plan would force the cancellation of many existing retirement plans that have better employer contribution rates; and

“Whereas low-income earners will have their retirement savings clawed back under this scheme; and

“Whereas Ontarians cannot afford another tax on top of their already skyrocketing hydro bills and ever-increasing cost of living;

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

“To abandon the idea of an Ontario pension tax.”

I will gladly affix my signature and give it to page Matt.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Vanthof: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly agree and will hand it to page Sameer.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ms. Daiene Vernile: This petition is titled “Planning for Ontario’s Future.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly agree with this petition and will affix my name to it.

Concussion

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m delivering this on behalf of my constituents in Nepean–Carleton but also for people as far away as Kingston and White Lake.

“Whereas the rate of concussions among children and youth has increased significantly from 2003 to 2011, from 466 to 754 per 100,000 for boys, and from 208 to 440 per 100,000 for girls; and

“Whereas hard falls and the use of force, often found in full-contact sports, have been found to be the cause of over half of all hospital visits for pediatric concussions; and

“Whereas the signs and symptoms of concussions can be difficult to identify unless coaches, mentors, youth and parents have been educated to recognize them; and

“Whereas preventative measures, such as rules around return-to-play for young athletes who have suspected concussions, as well as preventative education and awareness have been found to significantly decrease the danger of serious or fatal injuries; and

“Whereas Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to concussions, was introduced in 2012 but never passed; and

“Whereas 49” separate “recommendations” were made ... “to increase awareness, training and education around concussions” after a jury deliberated from a “coroner’s inquest into the concussion death of Rowan Stringer;

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

“That the Ontario government review and adopt Rowan’s Law to ensure the safety and health of children and youth athletes across the province.”

I, of course, endorse this petition. I ascribe my name to it and I present it to page Siena. Thank you, Siena.

Health care funding

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of a full range of core hospital services at both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.

“Whereas the provision of a full range of core hospital services, including acute care in-patient, emergency, diagnostic and surgical services, at both the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge by Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC) is vital for all of the communities in the entire MAHC catchment area, including Algonquin Park; and

“Whereas the continued delivery of those core hospital services at both South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital is crucial to the long-term sustainability and economic vitality of the two communities and the entire MAHC catchment area, including Algonquin Park; and

“Whereas the residents of Huntsville, Bracebridge and the other communities in the MAHC catchment area have strongly supported multi-site delivery of a full range of core hospital services, including acute care in-patient, emergency, diagnostic and surgical services, at both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital; and

“Whereas, contrary to the wishes of the people of the entire MAHC catchment area, the board of directors of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare has approved the ‘one-hospital model’ as the preferred model for hospital service delivery in the future;

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

“

(1) That the province of Ontario ensure that a full range of core hospital services, including acute care in-patient, emergency, diagnostic and surgical services, are maintained on a multi-site basis at both the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge;

“

(2) That the province of Ontario ensure that the changes to Ontario’s health care delivery system currently being implemented do not negatively impact access to services and the quality of care in Bracebridge, Huntsville and the entire MAHC catchment area, including Algonquin Provincial Park;

“

(3) That the province of Ontario ensure that the changes to Ontario’s health care delivery system currently being implemented recognize the unique and important role that smaller hospitals, such as the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital have in promoting economic development and creating sustainable communities in Ontario.”

I support this petition and have signed it.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It’s entitled “Planning for Ontario’s Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition, and I will affix my signature and hand it over to page Jacob.

Dental care

Mrs. Gila Martow: This is a new topic. The petition is called “Teeth: A Necessity, not a Luxury.

“To Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, as well as Patrick Brown, Leader of the Opposition:

“We, the undersigned, wish to protest the total lack of funding for dental reconstruction necessitated by cancer treatment when compared to the significant funds made readily available for breast reconstruction for women who have had cancer-related mastectomies.”

I will gladly affix my name to this petition and give it to page Matthew.

Public transit

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are critical transportation infrastructure needs for the province;

“Whereas giving people multiple avenues for their transportation needs takes cars off the road;

“Whereas public transit increases the quality of life for Ontarians and helps the environment;

“Whereas the constituents of Orléans and east Ottawa are in need of greater transportation infrastructure;

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

“Support the Moving Ontario Forward plan and the Ottawa LRT phase II construction, which will help address the critical transportation infrastructure needs of Orléans, east Ottawa and the province of Ontario.”

It gives me great pleasure to affix my signature and give it to page Calvin.

Landfill

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas many of the resources of this planet are finite and are necessary to sustain both life and quality of life for future generations;

“Whereas the disposal of resources in landfills creates environmental hazards which have significant human and financial costs;

“Whereas all levels of government are elected to guarantee their constituents’ physical, financial, emotional and mental well-being;

“Whereas the health risks to the community and watershed increase in direct relationship to the proximity of any landfill site;

“Whereas the placement of a landfill in a limestone quarry has been shown to be detrimental;

“Whereas the placement of a landfill in the headwaters of multiple highly vulnerable aquifers is detrimental;

“Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, humbly petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To implement a moratorium in Oxford county, Ontario, on any future landfill construction or approval until such time as a full and comprehensive review of alternatives has been completed which would examine best practices in other jurisdictions around the world;

“That this review of alternatives would give particular emphasis to (

a) practices which involve the total recycling or composting of all products currently destined for landfill sites in Ontario and (

b) the production of goods which can be practically and efficiently recycled or reused so as to not require disposal.”

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this petition, and I affix my signature as I agree with it.

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Mme Meilleur moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to enact the Representation Act, 2015, repeal the Representation Act, 2005 and amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 115, Loi édictant la Loi de 2015 sur la représentation électorale, abrogeant la Loi de 2005 sur la représentation électorale et modifiant la Loi électorale, la

Loi sur le financement des élections et la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Madame Meilleur has moved second reading of Bill 115. I look to the minister to lead off the debate. The Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough Southwest.

I rise in the House today to open debate on this bill that aims to strengthen our election system. The proposed Electoral Boundaries Act will help ensure that Ontarians are represented fairly and effectively in the Legislature.

As members will recall, in June the Premier and I spoke briefly about several proposed measures to reform this province’s elections laws which will strengthen the inclusive society that we are so proud of in this province.

For more than a decade, this government has demonstrated a firm commitment to ensuring we have a just and fair election system. Taking steps to ensure our election laws are not only up to date, but also progressive, is among the principal ways we have sought to achieve this.

As many of you will recall, in 2007 we considered a new electoral system for the province. To help provide voters with a say in deciding how their representatives should be elected, we held a referendum on this issue. This is something no other Ontario government has ever done. While the people decided not to proceed with a new system at that time, it was significant that we asked the question and heeded the response.

Later, in 2010, this assembly passed a bill that included several amendments to make the election process more accessible, convenient and flexible. Some of these measures included creating special ballots for those unable to make it to the polls. To better serve people with disabilities, we also made fully accessible voting locations a requirement. Shortly after, in the wake of the robocall scam during the 2011 federal election, we introduced steep fines and jail time for those committing election fraud. Clearly, our record shows that our commitment to maintaining a democratic electoral system has been unwavering.

I would now like to take this opportunity to tell the members in detail about the Electoral Boundaries Act, which we are proposing to help Ontarians continue to have a strong voice and effective representation at Queen’s Park. Following this, I will also explain a number of other measures that our government is considering to encourage greater public participation in the electoral process.

The legislation we are discussing today would build upon our government’s work to strengthen Ontario’s election system by ensuring that provincial ridings better reflect population movement and growth. If passed, the Electoral Boundaries Act would create 15 new ridings in southern Ontario. This adjustment will align with the federal electoral boundaries for southern Ontario that were put in place last year. Increasing the number of ridings in these areas will help ensure that this Legislature can better reflect the interests of these wonderfully diverse and flourishing regions. This is about representation by population, a core democratic principle.

We need to ensure that there is appropriate political representation in all parts of the province. Of course, the unique needs of communities in northern Ontario were an important consideration when we drafted this legislation. In 2005, our government made a commitment to support effective political representation in the North, and we intend to keep that promise. As a result, the 11 ridings in northern Ontario would stay the same, to ensure that northern communities continue to have effective representation in the Legislature.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the members about a few additional measures we are considering to strengthen our election system and to continue our legacy of progress and responsiveness to the changing needs and expectations of our citizens.

When we introduced the Electoral Boundaries Act, we also said we would move forward on other reforms, including the following: We will introduce rules that would allow the provisional registration of 16- and 17-year-olds. While the actual voting age would remain at 18, provisional registration could potentially allow for more meaningful engagement of young people. Later, when they turn 18, these young voters would begin receiving the same voter information as other adults on the electoral rolls. My hope is that they will be a bit more informed about the electoral process and a bit more likely to go to the polls than they otherwise would have been.

Finally, we will tackle the issue of third-party advertising. Ontario currently has rules in place to ensure transparency and free speech in our election campaigns. Third-party advertising rules were introduced in Ontario for the first time in 2007. Currently, third parties that spend $500 or more on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. They must also report to the Chief Electoral Officer on election advertising expenses. If election advertising expenses are $5,000 or more, these reports must be audited.

As members may recall, in the most recent budget our government committed to strengthening the province’s rules around election-related, third-party advertising. This will help ensure that we continue to protect the public interest. Informed by the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 2014 general election, we are now considering options for moving forward.

I think we can all agree that we believe in a just and fair society, a society that is inclusive and democratic. We know the importance of giving citizens the tools and resources they need to meaningfully participate in society. But Mr. Speaker, maintaining a democratic society does not just mean having a government that is willing to listen to what its people have to say; it must be willing to give people a megaphone through which to speak.

By adjusting electoral boundaries in southern Ontario and pursuing a number of other innovative, progressive electoral reforms, the proposed measures would help us build on the momentum our government has generated over the years.

I urge all members to support our proposed legislation for a stronger and more inclusive Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to recognize the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise in the House today to continue debate on this important bill.

As the Attorney General noted earlier, this bill and some other proposals we’re considering really get at the heart of the most cherished values we have as citizens of a democratic society—values like fairness and transparency, and the importance we place on progressiveness; the ability to participate, freely and without barriers, in decisions impacting our families, our businesses and our communities, decisions that influence the direction our society takes today and the future our children will inherit.

As some of the members will recall, in June the Premier reminded us of just how hard-earned this right of participation is; that it, in fact, took many decades of struggle before the right to vote was extended to every adult in Canada; and how today, as our society grows and evolves, it is up to us to ensure that our present-day laws continue to reflect those values upon which our province was founded.

As members are aware, last year the Chief Electoral Officer made a number of recommendations to government on different steps we could take to continue to strengthen the province’s election system. Strengthening third-party advertising rules and undertaking provisional registration of 16- and 17-year-olds are just two of the innovations he suggested. He also made a number of excellent recommendations that our government has been considering since receiving his report earlier this year.

As the Attorney General explained, the focus of the bill before us today is about ensuring that provincial ridings better reflect population growth and movement. This, of course, responds to another key recommendation of Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer. As members are aware, over the past decade Ontario’s population has grown rapidly in many areas of the province. This has resulted in a number of ridings with populations that are substantially greater than the provincial average.

To continue moving Ontario forward, we need to ensure there is appropriate political representation in all parts of the province. So, to ensure fair and appropriate representation of the people living in these areas, the Electoral Boundaries Act would create 15 new ridings in southern Ontario. The change will increase the total riding count in southern Ontario from 96 to 111.

Most of the new ridings would be in areas that have seen substantial population growth, such as Toronto, Peel, York, Durham and Ottawa, places more people are calling home. It includes Brampton, which has become one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, and places like Ottawa, where a few years ago the Ottawa-Gatineau population outpaced the country’s national growth.

The new electoral map would help ensure that this Legislature can better reflect the interests of these diverse and ever-expanding regions. This adjustment would align with the federal electoral boundaries for southern Ontario that were put in place last year. Indeed, a glance at the federal riding map currently in play for the October 19 federal election will allow you to see how our electoral landscape would look for southern Ontario come the next provincial election.

These are the 111 ridings that were established through the decennial federal boundaries redistribution process, and the changes from the old map to the new map, including name changes, are the ones that we are proposing to make provincially.

Of course, that is where the similarity between our two maps ends. As some of the members may recall, in 2004, federal redistribution reduced the number of federal seats in northern Ontario from 11 to 10. We disagreed with that action, which would only serve to weaken northern representation. That would be a step in the wrong direction. That is why, later the following year, our government passed the Representation Act, 2005, which allows Ontario to keep that 11th northern seat.

The step was a reflection of our government’s commitment to support effective political representation in the North, and to ensure that people who live in those communities continue to have a strong voice in the provincial Legislature.

As the Attorney General noted earlier, we fully intend to stand by and honour that promise today. To quote my colleague the Honourable Michael Gravelle, Minister of Northern Development and Mines, “Economically and socially, the North represents a unique and vital part of Ontario.” And so, through this bill, we are reaffirming our government’s commitment to protecting representation in the North.

Should the Electoral Boundaries Act pass, Ontario will have 122 provincial ridings and 121 federal ridings. It is seemingly small, but it is a significant point of difference and change, one to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, should this legislation pass, I should take this opportunity to clarify that the new electoral boundaries I have described wouldn’t come into effect right away, but rather upon the first dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after November 30, 2016. This means that any by-election before the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would take place according to Ontario’s current electoral map.

The legislative measures and other electoral reform proposals that I’ve described here are very exciting. As you know well, Mr. Speaker, we can be a raucous bunch sometimes, so while to me the thought of 15 new members, 15 new colleagues and friends in the House, is quite an exhilarating one, you may want to get a larger mace to keep order, with the new members coming into this Legislature.

But with great sincerity, I would like to conclude today by once again urging the members to support the government’s electoral boundaries legislation. Each of these measures the Attorney General and I described to you would help reinforce the province’s strong democratic traditions and preserve our most cherished values as Ontarians. Thank you.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I listened to both speakers on this bill. It was interesting. I heard at different times, I think two or three times by the Attorney General, and certainly by the member opposite, about listening to people. I wish they’d done that.

You know, it’s hard to believe that they do listen to people because of what they have done in several other bills that they have passed in recent years. The Green Energy Act comes to mind, how they don’t listen to people in rural Ontario over that, and certainly joint and several liability, which is something that over 200 municipalities supported: changes in the joint and several liability business. They didn’t listen to that. They just said, “No, you’re not right.” And certainly the Hydro One sale is something that they’re not listening to the people of Ontario about.

So I do have some suspicion that they listen to people, and certainly this bill—these changes that are going to mimic what the federal government is doing—has nothing really to do with listening to anybody. It’s just that the federal government is doing it, so we’re going to do it. That’s about all it is. They continue to reject good comments from the people of Ontario all the time just for their own political means.

Anyway, the bill will be changing these boundaries. I’m very glad it’s not touching my riding, because I do enjoy serving the people of Perth–Wellington, and we will be staying the same, although there are some ridings around me that are going to be changed.

I think people get comfortable with an MPP in their riding, and to change it around too often is not a good thing, although certainly in this case the changes are going to occur mostly in urban areas, and it’s probably a good thing for those reasons. It’s just that saying that they listen to the people of Ontario—it’s certainly something they don’t do.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and talk about the concerns of the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane—today on Bill 115, the first true debate about changes to the Election Act. It’s an interesting time to talk about the integrity of the Election Act, because we spend a lot of parts of question period talking about the Election Act.

I have a 20-minute space later this afternoon. A lot of people don’t realize, and this act lays it out very well, that the boundaries in northern Ontario and southern Ontario don’t follow the same rules. It’s quite confusing, actually, for people who live in northern Ontario, because—

Hon. Liz Sandals: It’s a good thing.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s a good thing. I’m not complaining, because we have—I think we’ll all agree that provincially we have a lot more to do with constituents than federally. So we’re not complaining.

My riding cuts across three federal ridings, so I have to deal with three federal MPs. So we do a lot more—and I am sure we’ve all had this: Someone will come into your office and they’ll have an issue with government. But to them, they don’t care if it’s federal, provincial, or municipal. They really don’t care. Regardless of party, in the North we have a pretty good rapport with each other to make sure that people don’t get the runaround: “Well, this is a federal issue and you have to...”, because especially in my riding, you’ve got three federal MPs.

When you start trying to explain the boundaries, people get really confused, but it’s something people have to keep in mind. If they took away one riding in northern Ontario, mine would be gone because mine doesn’t exist federally. But it’s—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: So you’d better support it.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m not saying I don’t. I have my 20 minutes later and I’ll bring up a couple of concerns regarding this bill, things that, hopefully, we can fix with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It is a pleasure to speak about this piece of legislation. Frankly, in my riding, when this comes into effect, it does impact it. One third of the riding goes towards the east, and two thirds of the riding goes sort of west and north. Speaker, I guess from a public perspective, I can tell you that since those new federal boundaries were established a couple of years ago or better, the common question was, “So is the province going to follow the same direction?” That mostly comes from municipal folks in agencies that we deal with, that we share responsibilities with.

There was a time, when I first got elected in 2003, when part of the city of Quinte West belonged to a different riding, and that part made it a little bit confusing, even to the residents. That was certainly one of the most asked questions in the last couple of years: Would we follow this?

Frankly, since we started talking about this, I’ve been trying to get some unofficial feedback. I mean, I certainly didn’t run any questionnaires or polls or those things, but when the subject comes up, if there’s an interest from the party I’m talking to, I do pop the question, “So are you supportive of this?” The answer is, “Absolutely,” because if they’ve ever had any dealings with our local riding office, and our federal counterpart’s office, it’s always good to have that relationship. And I can say, municipalities were one of the biggest benefactors.

I’m also delighted that we’re making a decision to give an additional riding to the North because I did do a little bit of travel—not a lot—up in the North, I must admit. It is a vast piece of geography. Frankly, I don’t know how some of those members do it. So I’m delighted that we’re doing that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m glad to have a two-minute comment on the words from our Attorney General and the member from Scarborough Southwest. I was really interested, listening to the Attorney General’s speech, when she started talking about fixing third-party advertising, so I ran down and grabbed a copy of the bill in case I missed something the first time I read through this. I read through it again, and for all the pomp and circumstance she made about fixing third-party advertising, there’s not one lick of evidence in here that they’re changing anything with regard to third-party advertising. I have no idea why she even commented on it when it has nothing to do with the bill.

It’s quite disappointing considering how warped the system has become due to third-party advertising. They had their opportunity. They have this bill in front of us. They could have easily added it in. They didn’t have to do any work to create this bill because the federal government did all the work for the last few years. They just mimicked what the federal government did, fixed what’s going on in the North and implemented the bill. There is no work on their side of the House on this bill.

So at the very least, they could have stepped forward and put their considerations into written paper and discussed how we could amend third-party advertising and make it fair for the people of Ontario. But they’ve missed this, and I don’t understand why they talked about it if they’re not even going to do anything about it. It’s more bafflegab and bloviation as opposed to actually implementing what we can go forward with.

The other aspect which I thought was very interesting: They want to start collecting data and let 16- and 17-year-olds register, so they could have their name and help promote—I’m all for letting more voters occur in our government. However, I think a better option would be maybe looking at our school system, how we can fix the curriculum so that our kids, our children, our youth get a better education of how the system of government works and operates in this province. Even adults today don’t have an understanding of the importance of voting, let alone how governments and elections operate.

So maybe fixing the educational process would lend credence to continuing on with improving the voter turnout, especially in our youth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough Southwest has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened very c