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

November 17, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-17 (PDF)

L120 - Tue 17 Nov 2015 / Mar 17 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 November 2015 Mardi 17 novembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

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

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Health care funding

Health care

Privatization of public assets

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Human rights

Winter highway maintenance

Long-term care

Aboriginal sports and recreation funding

Services for the developmentally disabled

Pension plans

Anti-bullying initiatives / Prévention de l’intimidation

Hydro rates

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Del O’Brien

Health care funding

Bernard Betel Centre

Ontario Christian Gleaners

Diagnostic services

GO Transit

Waste disposal

Kiwanis Club of Cambridge

Candlelight vigil / Veillée aux chandelles

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Smart Grid Cyber Security and Privacy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la cybersécurité du réseau intelligent et la protection de la vie privée

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness, Research and Care Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la sensibilisation au deuil périnatal, la recherche sur ce genre de deuil et l’aide aux personnes vivant un tel deuil

Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act (Relationship with Grandparents), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance (relation avec les grands-parents)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Privatization of public assets

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Lake Nipissing walleye fishery

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Health care funding

Ontario Northland

Lung health

Landfill

Veterans

Tenant protection

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t believe there is a quorum present. Is there?

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

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.

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

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 109, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act. As you know, this bill amends three pieces of legislation: the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

Although it hasn’t received a lot of publicity, this bill has the potential to impact a large number of people and organizations: injured workers, businesses, unions and non-unionized employees. As several people have mentioned, this bill is also taking some steps to support our firefighters. I want to acknowledge that there are some good changes in this bill, such as the fact that firefighters would be able to opt out of union membership or even opt out of paying union dues if being a member conflicts with their religious beliefs. I’m also pleased that there is progress on the double-hatter issue.

For those who aren’t aware, that refers to professional firefighters who live in another community and want to volunteer there. Many of my constituents’ communities rely on volunteer firefighters, so I’m pleased that we are getting rid of that barrier that prevents people from making that commitment. But there is still more to do.

One of the things we will want to see for our firefighters and for all our first responders is to ensure that they get the support they need for PTSD, which, as you know, stands for post-traumatic stress disorder. As our leader recently said during his speech to the police association, “If you’re a police officer with PTSD, you shouldn’t have to spend years fighting the WSIB bureaucracy to prove it.” The MPP for Parkdale–High Park has introduced a private member’s bill four times to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to lower barriers for first responders who need PTSD support and treatment. Our caucus is pleased to support that effort.

Last year, I was invited down to Windsor for an event, as the firefighters’ union donated a number of portable carbon monoxide alarms to the department. The alarms are now attached to the medical bags that firefighters take to calls, so that if they walk into a home with carbon monoxide they are warned about it right away and take steps to protect themselves and everyone else.

While I was there, some of the firefighters were talking about some of the difficult experiences they’ve had, such as going to a call and finding out that the injured person was a family member. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was a volunteer firefighter for 25 years, and I know there are some things you see that will stay with you for the rest of your life. We need to make sure that our first responders who are dealing with these things they have seen and experienced have all the support they need.

Over the last seven years, I’ve been working with fire services in a different way. They were very supportive of my private member’s bill, the Hawkins Gignac Act, which made it a requirement to have a working carbon monoxide detector in every home. In fact, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters, and Kingston Fire and Rescue all spoke at committee and supported the bill.

Many others worked with me throughout the five years it took to get the bill passed and in the two years since then to raise awareness about the need for carbon monoxide detectors and the fact that they do save lives. We need public education about installing and maintaining detectors, and I want to thank the fire service for all their work on this issue. I look forward to continuing to work with them as we move forward.

Over the last few years, I’ve been pleased to accompany the Insurance Bureau of Canada to fire departments across the province to try to raise awareness. Through those events, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has donated over 5,000 detectors that fire departments can give out to people in need or as part of their education campaign. I want to commend the Insurance Bureau of Canada for their work to save lives.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this bill impacts more than firefighters; it makes changes to three pieces of legislation. One of those changes is that when two groups of employees merge who are represented by different unions, it will now be automatic which union will represent them in the future. I’ve heard some concerns about that change. It means that if there is a municipal restructuring or restricting of provincial organizations, those employees won’t get a say in who is representing them. I think we need to hear from both the unions and the employees at a committee, because there may be a more democratic way to deal with this situation.

This bill also makes a number of changes to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. In my office, we hear from a lot of people who have challenges with the WSIB, and I hope that they will have a time to come forward in committee to share their stories and make suggestions on how the WSIB could do a better job. We’ve heard some stories about workers going through real hardships trying to prove their injuries to the WSIB. We’ve heard stories about them not listening to the worker’s doctor: Their doctor says it’s so, but that’s not good enough for the WSIB. I hope we will have time to hear from those workers at committee.

I hope we will have time to hear from the businesses that are paying WSIB premiums. Every year, I do a survey of businesses in Oxford, and every year WSIB is one of the issues that comes up at the top of the survey. WSIB premiums are a significant cost, and they are only one of the payroll taxes that a company pays. They want to know that every dollar they give the government is being used effectively, because if it wasn’t going to government they would be using that to create jobs and expand their business.

One of the biggest issues was the cost of doing business in Ontario. In the survey, 90% of Ontario businesses said they would be impacted by the proposed pension plan, and most of them said that the impact would be significant.

Today, I have touched on a few of the issues in this bill, but one of the challenges with debating it is that it does impact so many areas, so many organizations and so many people. Over the last few years, we’ve seen committee hearings get more and more limited. It’s rare that committees travel with a bill to hear from people in different communities, it’s rare that committee hearings are scheduled far enough in advance to allow significant advertising, and it’s very rare to give organizations 20 or 30 minutes to provide a really thoughtful and detailed presentation.

Too often, presenters are given such a short time that rather than ask questions, the MPPs are giving up their time so the presenters can just finish their speech.

We know this bill impacts businesses and injured workers. We should hear from both of those. We should hear from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the board of trade. We should hear from firefighters, from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and from fire chiefs and from municipalities and their employees. We should hear from the unions and from non-unionized workers. During the leadoff speech, the parliamentary assistant said, “The government needs those partners to consult, to collaborate and to make improvements.” I hope that he meant it and that he has the backing of his government for that statement.

A few weeks ago, we had a long discussion at the social policy committee about the public hearings for Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. We eventually agreed to three days of committee hearings, which created spaces for 40 people or organizations to present. And we had enough people to fill every single spot. There are people who want to come to share their concerns, who want to help us make the legislation better, who have the first-hand experience with the problems that we are trying to fix. I hope that when this bill goes to committee, we’ll have an opportunity to hear from them, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to this bill, and we look forward to the rest of the debate for the rest of this session.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The member made an interesting comment about how employers aren’t listened to by WSIB. I actually had a gentleman come into my office during constit week, where we have the opportunity to meet our constituents and listen to what they are having to say, and he talked about WSIB. This was an interesting example. The employee was injured at work; it was a construction trade. The employer acknowledged that he was injured at work and wanted to do everything to help the employee with rehabilitation and getting medical assistance. He was a young man; he had a young family.

So it was very compassionate that the employer acknowledged the fact that when someone is injured at work, it can change your whole life, change your financial status, your marital status, because the pressure gets so bad. The employer wanted to work with the employee to claim through WSIB. But here is the little surprise piece in the whole story, Speaker: WSIB was giving them a hard time. They were giving the employer a hard time and the employee a hard time.

This system for WSIB is one of the most broken, bureaucratic systems I have ever seen when it comes to dealing with injured workers and giving people benefits. It’s an insurance company. Insurance companies traditionally—when you’re ill, you go and you get those benefits, you recover, then you come back to work and life goes on. But not when it comes to injured workers, and there is a reason for that: because there’s an incentive program where the less injured workers you have in your workplace, the more incentive you get, the more bonus, the more payment you get back for not having those injured worker claims.

That doesn’t make any sense, because in the construction trade, as in the example that I used, those are high-risk-injury jobs, and those workers need support when they’re injured.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I listened to my esteemed colleague from Oxford. I invariably am impressed with the scope that he brings to the debate and some of his historical musings. He has clearly been one who has been dedicated on a number of fronts, to his credit. As I say, I enjoy whenever he contributes to the debate here, which is often, and we’re grateful for that.

We all have a joint responsibility to move this legislation forward, as it speaks to several things that are very, very important. Legislation, particularly WSIB legislation, should impact workers and employers because they have a joint responsibility to public safety and making our community stronger and safer.

As one of only two members who, when in opposition, supported the private member’s bill from the member for Wellington–Halton Hills on two-hatters, I’m pleased that there appears to be some pending resolution here on that important issue. If you have ever been a small-town mayor or councillor, you know the importance of that.

I would say in passing that the honourable member opposite did mention the pension plan proposal. I find it interesting that when Ontarians retire, 43% of them still owe money on a mortgage and 71% of them—

Interjection.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m trying to be nice—and 71% of them have no pension plan at all. So if we want to avoid a senior poverty tsunami, it’s really important that we move. I’m pleased that the new federal government has agreed that they will respond to the request of every province in this country to enhance the CPP. Hopefully—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me to respond to my friend and colleague from Oxford on his very thoughtful comments on Bill 109, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act. I also just want to acknowledge his work on the Hawkins Gignac Act. He’s been really tireless in travelling across the province promoting public safety. I listened very closely to his words.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because he and I actually agree on the double-hatter issue. I’m glad that he acknowledged the member for Wellington–Halton Hills. He and I don’t agree on his plans to put a tax on home ownership, but it’s nice that we agree on this particular bill, Bill 109.

I also want to take this opportunity, because this government has this awful habit of closing off debate. I think that when the member from St. Catharines was in opposition he called it “choking off debate.” I have a feeling, based on this government’s history, that this will be another bill where they will choke off debate, where they will limit the public’s opportunity to comment. Our party—we’ve only really had, with the member this morning, eight of our caucus members who have spoken to Bill 109. We still have 19 members who are willing to speak. Speaker, we have six members here today who are here—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Ready.

Mr. Steve Clark: —ready to debate this piece of legislation.

I want to remind members that there have been a number of speakers who have indicated that

schedule 2 and

schedule 3 of this bill, which affect the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act—there have been many members who have talked about the need for public hearings. Yet this government continues to say one thing and do something completely different. They talk about openness and transparency, yet they govern by time allocation and closure. It’s a sad day for democracy in Ontario, Speaker, when that happens.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I also want to add my voice to this debate. I want to thank the member from Oxford for his insight. I also want to give a shout-out to one of the beautiful cities in his riding, the city of Woodstock. We were able to chat a little bit about that yesterday in committee.

I think the member is absolutely correct when he says that far too often in this House we’re seeing a trend where the government is unwilling to take bills that are in this House out into the community. We’re not seeing enough input from and consultation with people who are outside of the GTA.

Previously, many bills were taken into other parts of the community, other areas of Ontario; and it was the right thing to do. It provided the ability to obtain insight from various regions in this province. That’s an important thing and we’re not seeing enough of that. I think that’s a trend that’s a wrong trend, a bad trend.

Again, when we talk about debate, far too often debate is being curtailed, debate is being shut down. It is contrary to the principles that this government has put forward as principles that they want to uphold: principles of accountability and transparency and being open. Well, cutting off debate is not in any way supportive of those principles. That’s another issue.

When it comes to the actual bill, in terms of the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, it’s essential that we look at how we can improve the condition of workers in this province. There are certainly some elements of this bill which will go towards improving their condition, particularly when it comes to workplace injuries and coverage.

The other area, though, that’s something we need to work harder on and work more diligently with is how we can ensure that workplaces are complying with the existing laws. That’s going to require greater enforcement, and that’s an area we need more focus on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for final comments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from London–Fanshawe, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for their kind comments.

I noticed that all three of them talked in their presentations about the need for public consultation and the need to hear from the people in the communities. Particularly referring to the member from London–Fanshawe, when she was talking about the problem with the WSIB and that people come into her office and they—both the employers and employees—talk about the challenges. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the fact that we had to change the bill. When the government proposed what the hearings were going to be on Bill 73, they were going to give four minutes for each presenter to present.

Now, when we listened to the member from London–Fanshawe, it is impossible that the complaints that they had and the advice that they had on how we could make the WSIB better—that they could get that in in four minutes. It couldn’t possibly be done. With a long debate, we finally got them convinced that we could go to 15 minutes for presenters. Mr. Speaker, I believe that’s the important part for the whole thing, to make sure that when you have these hearings, the public can make presentations and they can tell the government what needs to be done and how they should fix. I think that’s a very important part.

The second

part is that I think it’s also very important that the government, when they have these hearings, in fact listen to the public. Bill 73, again: We listened to presenters for the three days. Then, on the part that deals with the Ontario Municipal Board, one change that the government made on development charges, to what the people told us about the development charges review, the government said, “We didn’t hear that, so we’re not changing a thing.” Not only do we have to hear from the public, we have to be willing to listen and make the changes they are asking for.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my pleasure to rise in the Legislature today to speak to Bill 109, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act. It’s a broad title, Mr. Speaker, but that’s because this bill covers a broad range of issues. In fact, this bill will be amending three separate pieces of legislation, pretty significant pieces of legislation, which begs the question of why the government felt that they all needed to be amended simultaneously. They could have allotted the appropriate time to address each issue individually, but instead they chose to bundle them up together.

Also, if the government is going to open up these pieces of legislation, why not really take a look? Why not talk to experts and stakeholders and see what changes they feel need to be included? Why not hold consultations to hear from Ontarians across the province about how these three pieces of legislation could be best improved? It’s not often that the government decides to crack open the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I can tell you, from the long list of injured workers and experts that I have spoken to about this, that there are more than a few people who would love the opportunity to weigh in and have their voices heard. Instead, they’ve rushed this bill and stacked the amendments on top of each other. It shows that this government is more focused on playing politics than it is on helping Ontarians. So we’re moving two steps forward but taking three steps back.

I’ll take the time today to detail what we do support about this bill and what we don’t; what changes we believe are welcome and needed and what exactly the poison pill in this legislation is. Ultimately, we hope the government hears our concerns, realizes they are squandering an opportunity for bipartisan or tripartisan support of this legislation, and we hope the government removes the poison pill.

Schedule 1, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act: We support any and all provisions that give firefighters the same rights as other workers.

Schedule 1, we support; what we don’t support is playing politics with the firefighters’ bill and layering in contentious, unrelated problems. Which brings me to

schedule 2.

Schedule 2 is the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act. Here, tucked into

schedule 2, is the poison pill of this bill. This piece was added without consultations, without warning. It has to do with mergers—like in hospitals—involving more than one union or bargaining agent. When there is a merger, there should be a vote so that members can choose who will represent them. That’s fair. That’s freedom of association. That’s democracy. This change, however, will do away with a vote, and the bigger union automatically wins. It doesn’t mean that the members will necessarily be best represented, but this government doesn’t care. Why on earth is this a government priority?

Here is a way we can look at it: If the government is trying to control more of the workplace, they can strategically force mergers that would ensure that specific targeted unions are weakened and shut out of hospitals. I thought this was anti-bullying week. Here, however, we again find this government being sneaky in order to strong-arm and weaken the collective bargaining process and the democratic process. Shame on them.

Schedule 3, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act amendments: I’m going to take the most time today to discuss the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, the reason being that one of the included amendments is taken from my first-ever private member’s bill, Bill 98, the Protecting Victims of Occupational Disease Act. Bill 98, if adopted, will close a loophole in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and protect victims of occupational disease and their spouses so they will no longer be denied loss of earnings and survivor benefits.

It is deplorable that we allow workers to fall victim to occupational disease, and even more deplorable that their surviving spouses are being forced to fight for the benefits that they are entitled to after having lost a loved one.

I am pleased that the government has finally taken action and am happy to see part of the problem addressed, regardless of whose name is on the bill. However, my bill had two main parts, two areas of focus. Bill 109 addresses one; it addresses half of my bill. It’s interesting that when the government first spoke on this bill, they only took 30 minutes of the allotted one-hour lead time—half the bill; half the time.

Speaker, Bill 98 seeks to protect the surviving spouses who have lost their loved ones to an occupational disease. The catch has to do with retirement. If someone is diagnosed with an occupational disease, whether a miner or a firefighter, it means that their workplace made them sick. An occupational disease is understood to be a result of exposure to an unhealthy work environment.

When lawyers of employers realized that workers who were diagnosed after retirement, which happens with some diseases as they slowly progress—those who were diagnosed after retirement were not entitled to the same benefits, and their widows were not entitled to their WSIB pensions due to the fact that they had already retired—a technicality; a mean-spirited, awful wording loophole.

Both of these bills, my Bill 98 and this Bill 109, address the concern around widows’ pensions. My bill, however, makes it retroactive; Bill 109 does not. The government is allowing for this injustice to go on if a grieving widow doesn’t know about this change or how to file an appeal. That’s not right. It’s a halfway measure. We will bring it forward as an amendment in committee, to get that addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I’m still learning about bills, debates, committees and the amendment process. This government has chosen to open the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and two others. I thought, originally and mistakenly, that during committee I could bring forward amendments to suggest ways to make this bill better—amendments to the WSIA, since it’s being opened. Imagine my dismay when I clearly understood that only the sections of the WSIA being addressed by this Bill 109 are open to discussion. What a disappointment.

We are opening the act, but we can’t address what needs to be looked at—only what the government has preapproved. Most of my amendments—based on consultations I have been having with lawyers, injured workers and compensation representatives across the province—will be ruled out of order, so I’ll bring them up now.

The second part of my Bill 98 addressed the unfairness of persecuting a worker who is retired. Someone diagnosed in their retirement, according to the WSIA, is no longer considered to be earning, and therefore the way that compensation benefits are determined is affected. They are not eligible for loss of earnings benefits—benefits denied based on semantics. If it isn’t loss of earnings, is it loss of retirement, loss of health, loss of ability, loss of time with grandkids? What, then, should they receive as compensation for their recognized suffering and occupational disease?

I proposed they should be calculated the same as they would have been if the worker was diagnosed while working—the day before or the day after retirement shouldn’t quality or disqualify someone from what they clearly deserve.

This government—in fact, this Minister of Labour—supported the spirit of my bill and claimed to support the intent of it. So when will we see that issue addressed? I’m not even allowed to introduce it as an amendment because it is

section 43, not

section 48. Perhaps this government will bring forward a whole bill of nothing but targeted and necessary changes to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act—perhaps.

A worthwhile place for the Ministry of Labour to start is with Injured Workers’ Consultants lawyer John McKinnon’s paper entitled Age-Based Discrimination in Ontario’s Workers’ Compensation Laws. A number of age-based criteria have been included in compensation legislation since 1990. I will read a brief outline of the paper as explained by McKinnon:

“The concerns about age-based discrimination arise from these five areas: age-based limitation of compensation for wage losses, age-based limitation of the employer’s obligation to re-employ after injury, age-based limitation of loss-of-retirement income benefits, age-based reduction of non-economic loss benefits, and age-based reduction of pension supplements for pre-1990 injuries by Old Age Security benefits.”

Mr. Speaker, there is much to do. That list is just the beginning, so let’s actually tackle this in a purposeful way, not in a way that is superficial, that they can point to, but in a way that will make a difference to injured workers and their families.

Mixing all of these bills together is totally unnecessary; it’s counterproductive. I ask the government to listen to our concerns and separate these three schedules into the individual bills that they should be.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened to the thoughtful comments from the member from Oshawa. To put this in a bit of perspective, I can remember the day when, in most MPPs’ offices, all they did—their primary work—was dealing with WSIB issues. Each MPP would have hundreds and hundreds, sometimes thousands, of ongoing files they had to deal with that weren’t resolved; 90% of the work of MPPs was dealing with WSIB.

Now the WSIB is certainly much more invested in. There’s a lot more staff, expertise and support. It’s never going to be perfect because it deals with millions of workers on a daily basis. The complications of dealing with the issues of the employers and the issues of these workers is not an easy thing to do. I just don’t want to let people think that this insurance system for people who get injured is all bad. It is far from perfect, because it’s an open system that anybody can go to. It is not easy work for the thousands of men and women who work there. But it is something that is working.

Again, like in any other situation in a democracy, nothing ever works to perfection, but at least they do work very hard at trying to help workers.

In this legislation we’re trying to improve some of these aspects, like survivor benefits. We’re trying to do something about double-hatters. I find it ironic that the members are saying, “Well, there’s too much in this bill; it’s an omnibus bill,” and then they suggest putting other things into it.

It is a good bill that has some very effective changes that other members have asked for, like the double-hatters, where we’ve gone on for 10 years. It’s another way of just improving things, to make things better for workers in this province. That’s why I support this bill, and I urge the members not to try and have it both ways. Let’s get this done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the conversation around Bill 109 and compliment the member from Oshawa on her comments.

But first I feel it’s important to put on the record that I’d like to recognize my colleague, the party’s critic for labour, Ted Arnott, for his numerous attempts in the past to get this going forward in terms of recognizing the fairness around our firefighters. If we have a professional firefighter who wants to volunteer with his home department in his home community, he should be able to without repercussions. The whole issue of double-hatters has to be put to rest. I really commend Ted Arnott, the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, for driving this for a number of years.

Finally, we’re seeing some movement in that regard. I think he deserves to be congratulated for his determination to keep this going, as well.

The other thing, Speaker, that we need to recognize is that we do need to grow the economy and create new, good-paying jobs in Ontario. We absolutely need to strengthen Ontarians’ competitiveness so that we are no longer the most indebted subnational on this continent. The once economic engine of Canada being the most indebted subnational in North America is absolutely a travesty, and it’s certainly an area where this government must do better.

In the spirit of doing better, we also have to reflect on the fact that this government is choosing to shut down democracy. It’s not right that, in committee, our colleagues are having to give up their time to allow people who have made the effort to come to downtown Toronto to share their message. It’s not right that they’re shutting down debate, that they’re shutting down people’s voices. I hope they change their tune in that regard.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents from Windsor West and add, in this case, my two minutes’ worth to the debate.

I think the member from Oshawa really touched on some very key points with Bill 109, specifically a private member’s bill that she brought forward, Bill 98. It does so much more when we are looking at the firefighters, providing them with the benefits that they need and providing the survivor benefits that their families deserve. Through Bill 98, those survivor benefits are retroactive. Bill 109 doesn’t do that. There is no provision for that. We need to acknowledge that, often, the illnesses that present themselves are later in life, after somebody has retired.

We need to make sure that there are provisions to take care of them post-retirement and take care of their families once, unfortunately, those workers have passed on.

Another really key issue that the member from Oshawa touched on is really opening up the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act—truly opening it up; not just pulling out bits and pieces that the government wants to look at, but truly opening it up and taking a serious look at the problems. I think everybody in this room, whether the other side wants to admit it or not, and probably everybody out in the public knows that there are serious problems with WSIB. When people go to claim WSIB, there’s a history of people being denied, just for the sake of being denied.

We need to make sure that there are some real, solid provisions in place for those people who go to work every day, give it their all, get hurt and then are denied benefits. We need to make sure that they’re taken care of for the work that they do.

I hope that, in the future, the government will look at actually opening up the act so that we can make some good, serious changes to that act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m happy to respond for a couple of minutes on this. Essentially, what this bill is about is bringing fairness across the board to the first responders and other workers who have been referenced in the debate.

In particular, I just want to comment on how it affects the firefighters. The amendments that we are proposing, if passed, would bring the Fire Protection and Prevention Act into greater alignment with the Labour Relations Act. It’ll provide additional tools to resolve disputes and reduce the need to seek remedies through the court system.

I did want to say something very briefly about the WSIA, because there are four key provisions in that that I think are worth noting.

The first provision is going to ensure that all workers know that it is their right to file a WSIB claim. You’d be surprised at the number of workers who don’t, particularly in our minority population groups.

Secondly, it will make sure that workers have enhanced protections by incenting employers to operate safe sites, because it increases the penalties and so on on employers not in compliance.

Third, it brings a greater sense of fairness and fair play to the survivors in the case of a work-related death. It will ensure that they don’t have to go through the onerous steps that they’ve had to go through in the past.

Finally, the amendments to the WSIB will ensure that the Fair Practices Commission is in legislation. The Fair Practices Commission is an independent body that referees issues.

Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much, Minister.

Back to the member from Oshawa for final comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would like to acknowledge and appreciate those who made comments on my comments.

To the member from Eglinton–Lawrence: You brought up the history of the WSIB and that there are injured workers who are part of this system; and also the staff and that there are many people who are working hard to work within this system. As you said, it’s not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. To take that one step further, the right thing to do would be to really delve into this act, take the opportunity and look at it and see where it could be strengthened and where it could be made better. I don’t think anyone in this room argues that there are improvements to be made. It would be worth the time, really looking to make sure that that can be done properly.

To the member from Huron–Bruce, and hearing the history of the work done on behalf of the firefighters—we, as a caucus, support all of that and are glad to see these provisions come forward in this bill. Again, it begs the question: Why isn’t there a firefighters’ bill, with all of the pieces together in one, that we can all celebrate and move through? It’s layered with these other pieces here today and the poison pill that is the opposite to what we are hoping to accomplish.

We’re looking at making it more fair. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had mentioned fairness and fair play for workers. Well, then we have

schedule 2 that takes away the democratic right to vote for who will represent you in the event of a merger. Just slip it in there—surprise. That is not democratic. It is not what we stand for, and it is problematic. To talk about fairness and fair play in that larger picture, but then to put that little nugget in there—that’s sneaky.

Again to the point made by my colleague from Windsor West that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and the other acts—if we want to make a difference, let’s truly open them up and make that difference.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I too am pleased to rise this morning to add my comments to Bill 109. As we heard, this bill, if passed, would amend three separate acts affecting workers, to increase fairness and efficiency. The changes under this bill would, if they become law, provide increased fairness to all workers across Ontario.

This would be done by providing more tools to resolve disputes in the fire sector; ensuring that broader public sector transitions go as smoothly as possible; and helping to provide a fair, just and efficient workers’ compensation system. This would strengthen the protection for workers while supporting business in trying to achieve that balance.

I want to concentrate on the changes that are proposed under the WSIA, for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. These amendments, if passed, would do mainly four things, and I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs touched upon those.

The first would be to ensure that workers know it is their right to file a WSIB claim, and that this right will be protected. If passed, this bill would prohibit an employer from taking any action against the worker with the intent of discouraging the worker from filing a claim or influencing the worker to withdraw or abandon a claim.

This happens, unfortunately. In my constituency office, I will see, for example, newcomers to Canada. They don’t know all of the laws and don’t know their rights. So it is important for them to know not only that they have a right to file a claim—and that the employer has no right to try to influence them in any way—but it is their right to do so.

Secondly, this bill proposes an increase in maximum corporate penalties for convictions of an offence under this act. The penalties would increase from $10,000, where they are now, to $500,000. I think this is right, because we have to make sure that, again, workers are protected.

It would also provide greater fairness for survivors in cases of work-related death. Bill 109 would enable the WSIB to calculate the survivor benefits based on the average earnings of a worker engaged in the same profession as that out of which the deceased worker’s injury arose. This is important for how the WSIB calculates survivor benefits for a worker who unfortunately dies of an occupational disease, who had no or low earnings on the date of the diagnosis because they were retired.

At the moment, when a worker passes away from an occupational disease and has no earnings at the time of diagnosis, the board’s practice is to calculate the survivor benefits based on the annual average earnings of a worker engaged in the same trade. Bill 109, if passed, would enable the board to continue this practice and enshrine it in legislation. It would also be retroactive. It would apply to survivor benefits that were payable as of January 1, 1998, which was the date when the WSIA came into effect.

Most importantly, it would enshrine the Fair Practices Commission in legislation. The Fair Practices Commission, I want everyone at home to know, is an independent, neutral, confidential resource for injured workers, employers and service providers, and it is free of charge. These services include looking into individual complaints, tracking complaint trends, identifying system-wide issues and recommending improvements to the WSIB. This is very important for people who get hurt at work.

I know that the member from Oshawa was talking about opening the act. There could be a good idea for any act, but rewriting a whole act could take a year and a half or two years. In the meantime, we’re approaching, through Bill 109, some changes that need to be done immediately. It’s not that there’s not always more work to do; there is, but we’re trying to really address things that can be done right now.

Mr. Speaker, during the second reading debate of this bill, we’ve heard opposition members express their support for this important legislation. For example, I know that the member from Niagara Falls said, “ When I brought this bill to the local firefighters, they said they were happy with the language that was in it. So I can say I am also happy to know that they will receive the protection afforded to them and other workers under the Labour Relations Act.”

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said, “I want to talk about the double-hatter issue. This is what I want to commend the government on. I think they’ve done something very positive.”

The member from Essex said, “ The Fair Practices Commissioner, as an ombudsman of the WSIB—I welcome that type of role, somebody who can come in and actually assess whether the practices under the WSIB are being effectively and fairly implemented.” I agree with that.

Also, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane said, “This bill is another good example of a couple of pieces of good legislation which we support.”

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government introduced this bill back in May. We allowed debate to continue, when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on this bill, so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. This bill has now seen over 10 hours of debate. According to my modest count, I think about 60 MPPs have spoken on the bill. So there has been considerable debate on this bill, and we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives.

I believe it is time that this bill is put to a vote for second reading and, hopefully, be referred to committee, where the important work takes place, as we know. In committee, members of all parties will hear from stakeholders who have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will be able to provide their important input on this bill.

There are a number of pieces of important legislation that have already been introduced that we would like to debate and we would like to move through, because we’re here to make a difference for our constituents and we’re here to make changes that are needed immediately.

Let me give you some examples of bills that we need to discuss and that are important:

—Bill 119, Health Information Protection Act;

—Bill 122, Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act;

—Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act;

—Bill 135, Energy Statute Law Amendment Act;

—Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act.

These are all important bills that our constituents expect changes to be coming forward on. So we would like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before this House. We also need to refer Bill 106 to committee for further review so we can go on with other debate. As a result—

Mr. Steve Clark: Don’t do it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Mr. Speaker, I kindly move that this question be put now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mrs. Albanese has moved that the question now be put.

We have had seven days, approximately 10 hours, of debate on this particular bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please. Thank you very much.

I am satisfied that there has in fact been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Et tu, Speaker? Et tu?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Et tu, Brute?

It is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question now be put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Since we had sufficient people standing, there will be a deferred vote after question period this morning.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

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

Mr. Murray moved third 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Murray has moved third reading of Bill 9. Back to the minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is a much-debated bill, but I think it makes a lot of sense. There is some legacy here across governments. We’re very proud as a government to have phased out coal across Ontario, the largest greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the history of North America. It goes back, and there is some shared legacy here. As we remember, the member for Waterloo, Ms. Witmer, I think it was back in 2002, took actions toward the first coal closure, which was in Mississauga. It was interesting because she said at the time that it would probably lead to increased prices for energy.

She was quite articulate about balancing those kinds of things, but the cost to Ontarians of keeping these things open was much more significant and much more severe, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of debate on this in the earlier readings of the bill, so I don’t want to belabour the point, but one of the things that I find quite interesting is that I’ve had a few people say, “Why is the government bringing forward a bill to close coal plants and to make it a law that you can’t open them?”

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: That’s a really good question.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s a very good question.

One of the biggest challenges with climate change is coal. You may know that in 2011 the government of Germany—Ms. Merkel, who I have an amazing amount of respect for on the international issues of Syria and immigration; she is an incredibly principled leader of great integrity. Her government, however, decided in 2011 to shutter all 17 nuclear plants. You can imagine what would happen to our energy profile in Ontario if we made the decision, as Germany did or as Japan did or as other jurisdictions did, to close all our nuclear plants. The member from Oxford I think sincerely asked, “Why would you put this in law?”

If Germany, after it had started to phase out coal, had actually made a decision that it was going to keep carbon-intensive industries out of the rule—they would not be able to do this, right? It would certainly be a good debate. It’s interesting right now because the amount of coal production in Germany is huge. They are becoming more and more reliant on coal. We have a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, Mr. Speaker; Germany is at 40%. For the member from Oxford, it creates some challenges if you’ve committed to a 40% reduction in GHG emissions and you close 11 nuclear plants, and then coal becomes the default replacement.

The same thing happened in Japan. You see coal plant closures now expanding in places like Turkey and Brazil. What it means is that some of those countries like Germany are continuing to meet their GHG emission targets but it’s coming at a huge cost.

The other thing that’s happening in some of these countries that have actually brought coal back online is that they’ve lost investor confidence. We just did our IPO with Hydro One for the 15%, and we got good value out of that. Do you know that over 53% of investors in energy in Germany right now have frozen their investments because of the controversies around coal production? Germany is also dealing with huge health issues from late-night-generated coal.

Japan: It’s understandable, because Japan has a short-term solution. The Fukushima disaster, for which I know we all have great empathy and pray for the folks in Japan who lost lives, was a huge tragedy. We know the vulnerability and the dangers that go with energy are very real, so I don’t think this is to be taken lightly. We are in a jurisdiction right now where we have good geology and we don’t have some of the vulnerabilities that some of those places do, but it is not an exceptional situation to see countries reverse themselves and open up coal.

When we are voting as a Legislature, whether we are talking about the work that someone like Elizabeth Witmer did or Jim Bradley, Dalton McGuinty and many other folks in this House from many parties who worked very hard to make these very difficult decisions to get us to a carbon-neutral economy—the implications of the level of carbon dioxide at 400 parts per million right now in our atmosphere won’t be felt for another 50 or 60 years. We just have to look at what’s happening right now.

It is estimated by scientists that the major drought events going on in the world are two to three times more likely to be happening because of the level of carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere 50 or 60 years ago.

California produces 90% or more of our strawberries and broccoli, most of our basic vegetables, and 35% of all of our food in North America. California is now in five years of an extreme drought. There is no other place in the world on which Ontarians, outside our own borders, are more reliant for food. That’s affordable food for families. It jumped about 20% last year, our imported food. We know that the level of five years of extreme drought—and NASA now projecting and saying, as has the Pentagon, that these are climate-related events.

We know the situation in Syria. It was preceded, from 2005 to 2011, by probably the worst drought in human history. It is estimated that Syria lost, prior to 2011, 60% to 80% of its food production. Over 800,000 farmers lost their farms, and about two million people—one of the largest domestic migrations in human history within a country—migrated into the large cities. At the same time, one million refugees were coming from the Iraq war. That created a destabilized situation. The country lost its food production; it was losing its water supply because of a drought. That drought began, again, in 2013.

You can’t say all of these things are direct A to B climate change-related, but as the folks at the NASA Goddard centre and the United Kingdom academy of sciences have said, the possibility of that extreme level of drought that would force agricultural collapse and the loss of a rural middle class is not very likely without the changed conditions on this planet.

As the Pentagon said, climate change is now destabilizing regions like Sudan because it’s creating food and water crises that, in countries that already don’t have enough capacity and already have problems with famine, create conflicts and are catalysts and accelerators of conflict.

On a global scale, as we lead up to Paris, we’re going to go in there very, very proud—I don’t just mean our Liberal government; I hope all members of the Legislature—that we have closed coal plants and we are committing to keeping them closed. That puts us not just in the minority of jurisdictions that have phased out coal, but we’re one of the jurisdictions that is committing—unlike other major players in the world, like Japan and Germany and some of the emerging economies—to keep them closed. If we think this is a light commitment that we’re making, Speaker, it’s not.

It’s a commitment that many of the world’s most successful and largest and most powerful economies have not been able to keep.

In the spirit of non-partisanship and our planet and our children, I’m hoping we will not only vote for this, but will vote for it with great pride, because this is a legacy of all members of this Legislature. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and God bless.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the third reading of Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act. I appreciated the comments that the Minister of the Environment shared just prior to me standing. I appreciate the fact that he recognized the work that Elizabeth Witmer did, but I’d also like to recognize the work of my colleague the member from Simcoe–Grey. When he was Minister of Energy, he actually signed the order to close Lakeview, so I wanted to give him his due recognition as well.

It’s important that we do recognize the legacy of effort that has culminated in improving the environment in Ontario, Speaker. Again, it’s important that people understand that Elizabeth Witmer was a champion. She held her seat in 1990 until recently, in 2012. This remarkable woman, who has a connection to my riding of Huron–Bruce, was an absolute dynamo and a wonderful representative at Queen’s Park of her constituents of Kitchener–Waterloo, as well as of the entire PC Party during her tenure here at Queen’s Park.

I really think it’s important that we recognize that it was her efforts in 2001, when she was the Minister of the Environment, that formulated the plan to end the use of coal at the Lakeview Generating Station in Mississauga.

I think it’s important to recognize that we want legacies to be respected. To that end, during committee, my party, the PC Party of Ontario, brought forth an amendment asking that Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, be named in recognition of Ms. Witmer’s work in ending coal-fired power generation. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to vote that particular amendment down. So while I appreciate the platitudes that have been offered to Ms. Witmer from the opposite side of the House here today, I really wish they would have given her due recognition and paid tribute to her legacy by renaming Bill 109.

Let’s take a look at the important initiatives the PC Party of Ontario has long been involved with in terms of advocating to protect our environment.

Speaker, it was back in 1972, under the premiership of Bill Davis, that the Ministry of the Environment was actually created. It was two years later, in 1974, during that throne speech, that the same Progressive Conservative government announced it was bringing in a new Environmental Assessment Act. This meant that for the first time, there would be a formal way to review the impact of new proposals on our land and water. In 1975, I’m very pleased to say, it was the PC government that made it law.

Following this wonderful tradition of environmental consciousness, we in the PC Party do support ending the use of coal-fired power generation and we recognize the benefits that this action provides to our province.

I do want to take a moment, though, during this third reading to recognize a number of organizations who took the time to raise their voice and share comments on this action. In fact, it was in June of this year that the International Institute for Sustainable Development published a report on Ontario’s coal phase-out. It is in this report that they recognized that health concerns of course was one of the greatest driving factors influencing Ontario’s policies regarding coal.

But I do want to share something that we can’t overlook. In that report, they recognized that Ross McKitrick had his own study that recognized that coal phase-out would lead to extremely small improvements in air quality because we need to recognize that we in Ontario are also impacted by the use of coal in the States, in terms of prevailing winds. It’s not just the coal plants in Ontario, but outside influences that affect our air quality as well.

There was a conference in 2007—The Future of Coal in Ontario? Towards a Clean, Secure and Competitive Energy Portfolio—that argued that air pollution in Ontario was mainly caused by our friends south of the border. Even at that point, Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller “testified to a steady improvement in air quality in Ontario during and after the phase-out.” During that testimony, he noted that “while reports clearly show improvement, we can’t specifically attribute this to the Ontario coal phase-out” because we’re glad to say that the US is taking strides in that regard as well.

So in Ontario, we’re unique. We phased out our own coal plants. We recognize the fact that we are impacted by prevailing winds bringing attributes of coal use into our province, but we recognize as well that our friends in the States are reconsidering their use of coal in terms of new innovation and new technology, and using technology that will limit the emissions from coal use.

When we talk about new innovation and new technologies, I can’t help but think of cap and trade, because we need to ensure that, as Ontario moves forward to limit greenhouse gas emissions, we need to be using tools. We need to be setting regulations and legislation that lead to allowing technology, innovation and ultimately industry to impact how they can continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can’t tie their hands with unnecessary legislation and heavy-handed legislation. We need to make sure that the tools are in place to enable industry to continue to work towards cleaner air in Ontario.

I worry a little bit, because if we rush too much with cap and trade in our efforts to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, we could very well end up with legislation that is ill-advised, with a lack of consultation. It brings up neonics. It brings up the Great Lakes Protection Act. There has been so much in recent history where this government has chosen to totally ignore voices of concern over their regulations and over legislation that they’ve introduced. I have to say that we need to be very careful and diligent in holding this government to account when it comes to implementing one of the most impactful pieces of legislation and vision in terms of cap and trade.

Stakeholders and industry representatives have been asking for details this past week, during our constit week. There has been outreach. There were one-on-one meetings, and there were telephone town halls, if you will, where a few more layers have been put onto the cap-and-trade vision that this government is looking to implement.

But I know there’s still concern in the aggressive approach that this government is taking. They’re looking to really go forward in 2017, probably with an increase in fuel, but we’ll see. They said right from the outset a three-cent to a four-cent increase on fuel, and that’s just based on what they’ve learned from Quebec at this stage of the game. But what happens after that? That three to four cents—industry is saying they want to see that particular money go into a dedicated coffer, if you will, as opposed to the black treasury hole. They want to see that initial money go into making sure that a cap-and-trade market is adequately funded, and innovation ultimately is driven from that.

It’s interesting, as we reflect on the amount of time that this government wants to place on Bill 9. Speaker, if you were to look at this bill, it’s two pages. Why are we spending so much time on something that clearly did not need legislation because it was happening anyway, when there are so many other important issues that should be discussed?

It’s mind-boggling how, time and time again, this government is time-allocating bills, limiting debate, limiting voices on very important issues that really deserve a lot of thought, a lot of self-reflection and a lot of input from our stakeholders, to make sure that we’re getting it right. We all know what happens when you rush legislation and you cut off voices from the consultation table. We end up with an ill-conceived approach to managing neonics. We end up with a Green Energy Act that stripped away local autonomy.

But some would say that was maybe the intent of limiting voice. They did not want communities having a say in whether they wanted to host renewable energy projects to the extent that this government has penetrated Ontario. It just goes to show that this government, I would dare say and argue, does not want to open up democracy, because it’s their way or the highway. I’m very concerned about that.

Again, this bill, Bill 9: We have spent a lot of time on it. It is a mere two pages. Here we are in the House, dedicating more time in third reading to say, “Yes, this is a good initiative.” But for goodness’ sakes, let me use this platform while we discuss Bill 9 to ask this government respectfully to be mindful of the other pieces of legislation that need to come forward in this House and be mindful of the fact that voices need to be raised in order to make sure it works for Ontario and stakeholders and taxpayers. We need to open up debate. We need to allow people across this province an avenue to share their ideas, their support or their concerns.

As it was said earlier today in debating Bill 109, this government is not allowing committees to go across the province like it once did. They’re making everybody come in to Toronto. They’re limiting their deputations to mere minutes, to the point where our party and the third party are giving up of their time of questioning just to give these people, who want to have their voices heard, a chance to deliver their entire message. There’s something wrong with this picture.

I truly hope that, going forward, we can celebrate the closing of coal plants across Ontario. But for goodness’ sakes, in the spirit of legacy that the Minister of the Environment talked about, let’s make sure that we do better from here on in. In terms of legacy, let’s make sure that collectively, in that non-partisan spirit he referred to, we join together and say that coming down the pipeline, all future legislation deserves to be debated properly. We should not be time-allocating it.

We should be making sure we can travel across this province to allow people—who have great ideas, who may have concerns—a chance to elevate their voice, because not everyone can make the effort to come in to Toronto to speak to a committee for a mere five minutes or so. It just doesn’t make any sense. I would suggest that there is incredible room for improvement, on the government side of doing business, in that regard.

It makes one wonder, coming back to Bill 9, if this is just another photo op. These folks are doing everything they can to minimize debate but get out there for the big photo op. It’s kind of rich, in the sense that people are seeing through it. They’re concerned. People are seeing through all the facade of doing better for Ontario, because quite frankly, they’re calling the government out now, and that’s good news. They’re calling the government out on the sale of Hydro One, and they’re worried about cap and trade. It’s going to be an interesting time.

I look forward to further debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member. There will be time available for you, if you need more, at a later date and time.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is now 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s absolutely my pleasure to introduce MaryLynn West-Moynes, CEO and president of Georgian College, and especially the campus in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome George Kemp, the chair of the board of governors of Northern College and a constituent of my riding, and Fred Gibbons, the president of Northern College.

Ms. Soo Wong: I believe we have a guest from my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. Page Aislin Perry’s grandmother Isabel Hutchison is here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I believe she’s sitting in the public gallery.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce Mr. George Burton, the president of Canadore College in North Bay, and Mr. Bill Ferguson, the chair of the board of governors.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce Mrs. Jane Meadus. She’s a lawyer at the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. Next to her is Tamara Daly of York University. She is a long-term-care researcher and holds the Canadian Institutes of Health Research research chair in gender, work and health. Welcome to Queen’s Park, ladies.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s my great honour to welcome members of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario who are visiting Queen’s Park for their annual meeting, which is taking place today in room 228 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. I welcome all members to drop in.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would like to welcome teachers who are here with us for a few days this week for the teachers’ forum—and I think by that look, I just trumped you; sorry, Speaker.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park the grade five class from St. Paul Catholic Elementary School from the riding of Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome the representatives here today from Union Gas and Enbridge at their annual day here at Queen’s Park. There’s a reception tonight in the Queen’s Park dining room.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today an exciting new president of St. Clair College in Windsor, Patti France.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very happy to welcome a number of guests from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. We have some members of page Hannah Dossa’s family here—I understand Hannah is the page captain today—her parents, Farid and Dinar Dossa; her maternal grandparents, Ashraf and Parviz Parpia; her paternal grandparents, Nazin and Yasmin Dossa; and her great-aunt Zarina Esmail. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome my good friend, the president of Niagara College, Dan Patterson.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would also like to welcome Dan Patterson, but I would also like to welcome—and I’m just choosing one of the people here from the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario—Gracia Janes, who is a strong defender of farmland in the province of Ontario and agriculture in the Niagara region.

Hon. David Zimmer: From Seneca College, I would like to welcome the board chair, Donna Duncan, and the president, David Agnew.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Glenn Vollebregt, the president of St. Lawrence College in Kingston and the Islands. Welcome.

Mr. Han Dong: On behalf of the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, I would like to welcome all the members from Colleges Ontario. It’s their Queen’s Park day, and I just met a few of them. I encourage all members of this House to have a very fruitful meeting with them today.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to introduce the president of Sault College: Dr. Ron Common is with us today in the public west gallery.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce family members of page Michelle Lewis, who are visiting from my riding of Davenport: mother, Nicole Knowlton; father, Shaun Lewis; and proud grandmother Joanne Lewis. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to salute and welcome the president of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, Mary Potter—and also a good friend of mine and a constituent of our House leader: Beverley McIntosh, who I had the pleasure of working with for several years.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to welcome here today the students of St. Josephine Bakhita elementary school, from Ajax, Ontario. They will be visiting with us very shortly.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome MaryLynn West-Moynes and Tom McBride from Georgian College in my riding.

M me France Gélinas: I also have a teacher who is here today. His name is Ravi Vethamany. He’s a teacher at Cecil Facer, up in my riding of Nickel Belt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to welcome Cheryl Jensen in the west gallery. She is the president of Algonquin College in Ottawa, one of the most progressive and successful colleges in the province.

Hon. David Zimmer: Our page captain today is Taylor Dallin, and in the gallery today is her mother, Gloria Yoon; her father, Eric Dallin; and her brother Logan Dallin.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to welcome students from All Saints Catholic Elementary School, who I just visited with and are joining us in the gallery shortly, and the teachers who are with them: Natalie Makhlouf, Kristen Baker, Jeanette McDonald and Lisa Ferrarelli. Thank you for visiting Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know my friend John Vanthof introduced Fred Gibbons, who is here from Northern, but David Agnew is here from Seneca as well, and I’d like to acknowledge his presence.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome Maureen Piercy, president of Loyalist College, and Tony Tilly, president of Fleming College. I had the opportunity to meet with them this morning. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Along with our college educators, we have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, 25 teachers from across the province participating in the fourth annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario Teacher’s Forum. Please join me in warmly welcoming some of our province’s educators to the Legislature today. Thank you for being with us.

I’m sure the college presidents, teachers and students who are here are going to enjoy question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will do my best to behave; I’m sorry.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon.

Dave Levac): Before we do that, I would like to have you meet our new pages: from York Centre, Megan Faith Ally; from Vaughan, Alex Bancea; from Parkdale–High Park, Ross Cameron; from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Keana Cavero; from Willowdale, Taylor Dallin; from Pickering–Scarborough East, Hannah Dossa; from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Benjamin Huckabone; from Mississauga–Streetsville, Oluwadayomi Kehinde; from Northumberland–Quinte West, Lauren Kinsey; from Etobicoke Centre, Aminah Kirefu; from Davenport, Michelle Lewis; from Windsor West, Prasanna Mohile; from Mississauga–Brampton South, Ajay Narayan; Scarborough–Agincourt, Aislin Perry; from Welland, Benjamin Shoalts; from Oak Ridges–Markham, Aaron Suthakar; Oakville, Brooke Westwater; from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Rachael Young; unable to be with us today in the introductions, from Eglinton–Lawrence, Jack Farley; and from St.

Paul’s, Noam Lasry.

These are your pages.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: I’m going to try again today. The question is not about infrastructure. The question is not about valuation. The question is not about 2002 or previous governments or past Premiers. The question is not about leveraging assets. The question isn’t about restructuring the old Ontario Hydro. The question is not about the 407.

My question is sincere. My question is simple. Mr. Speaker, yes or no, does the Premier think paying the Hydro One CEO $4 million is appropriate? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will start right off the bat.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just begin by commenting that the median salary for CEOs of American energy companies was over $7 million last year. That’s the median salary for American energy companies. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that a large part of that compensation package for the CEO of Hydro One will be dependent on, will be at risk if the company doesn’t improve, if there isn’t better customer service, if there isn’t better health and safety for workers. He knows that those factors are in place.

But the whole discussion about Hydro One, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, is about investment in infrastructure. That’s what it’s about. That’s why we are making these changes: so that we can invest in the infrastructure that we need in the 21st century.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Rather than comparing to corporate America, compare to other provinces. Hydro-Québec: $400,000, compared to your $4-million payout.

Regardless of the mess this government has made of the personal support worker wage increase, I can tell you a PSW can make a little over $30,000 a year. Notwithstanding the cuts across the province to special education, we know educational assistants make around $35,000 a year. And despite the fact the government has cut hundreds of nurses across Ontario, a new nurse will make over $50,000 a year. Yet knowing all of this, the government still thinks it’s appropriate to pay $24 million a year for just the top four paid executives at Hydro One.

Knowing all this information, knowing all the cuts you’ve done to front-line services, how can you find this appropriate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, let’s just—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m asking everyone. This will be the last time I interrupt to ask. I will then move to warnings.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The question from the Leader of the Opposition and the heckling from the leader of the third party would lead one to believe that they actually supported our increases to personal support workers’ salaries and development support workers and ECEs. They didn’t support them; they didn’t support those increases. So it’s a bit rich, coming from the two of them, to attack us about our support for those workers.

Mr. Speaker, broadening the ownership of Hydro One is about investing in infrastructure that, in fact, will provide opportunity for the very people that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party seem to be worried about. Making sure that we have companies in this province that can move their goods and their people around, making sure that the quality of life for people who depend on transit is improved: That’s what these investments are about. It’s why we’re broadening the ownership of Hydro One.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Single parents are working two jobs and barely staying afloat. Some of our school support staff are clearing $40,000 a year. The average truck driver makes somewhere between $25,000 to $50,000 a year. Corrections officers are making $55,000 a year, and often in unsafe conditions.

I’ve asked over and over again, and the government has been disingenuous and seems to just not care. I will give them one more shot. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Give me one reason why it’s appropriate to pay the Hydro One CEO $4 million a year. It is not even close to anywhere to what other hydro CEOs are making anywhere else in Canada—one reason.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Control your anger now, when you answer this question.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who’s next?

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we ran on and are implementing a plan that is based on investment in the people of this province. I will tell you, having travelled to California and China, that I am even more convinced that our advantage in Ontario is our people, making sure that they have the education and skills that they need for the 21st century. They are our advantage.

But in order for those people to be at their best, we need, as a government, to make the investments that will allow them to thrive, whether that’s in our education system, our colleges and universities—funding for those institutions has been going up and continues to go up—or whether it is the investment in infrastructure that we absolutely need in order to be able to compete.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Stormont is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s the plan that we have put in place. That’s the plan that we’re implementing. It is a plan that is comprehensive. So, the Leader of the Opposition has taken one piece. He doesn’t, for reasons unknown to us, like the idea of improving Hydro One. We think that it should—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: The government can’t have it both ways. The Deputy Premier routinely shouts about the 1% when we question the government’s cuts to physician services. But the front bench over there is the first to defend the outrageous salary of Hydro One’s CEO, one that is almost 40 times that of a new doctor.

Further to that, the Financial Accountability Officer’s report has said that the government hopes that “measures to reduce physician fees” will help them reach their targets. They have already cut the portion of health care three times in the last year.

Mr. Speaker, how many more times will the government slash physicians’ service fees, and when can doctors expect the next cut?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So now we’re going to talk about some of the people in the province who earn the most money, and that they should earn more? That’s now where we’re going? The inconsistency that continues to come from the opposite side is quite remarkable.

What we’re defending as a government in our plan is the right of the people of Ontario to have excellent institutions in their education and their health care system, to have the investments in infrastructure—whether it’s roads, bridges, transit or water systems—that they need in order to be able to compete, to have a government that is going to work with businesses to allow them to flourish and become exporters, to open doors around the world, and to allow them to expand and to compete globally.

That’s what we’re defending, Mr. Speaker. That’s the plan we’re implementing, and I’m sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is so inconsistent that he can’t either see that or understand that we have to do all of those things.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: You want to talk about consistency? A $4-million salary for a Hydro One CEO is appropriate, but a family doctor making one fortieth of the salary isn’t appropriate? Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, I was visiting Windsor and I went to the Windsor Regional Hospital. There I met just a handful of the 800,000 Ontarians without a family doctor.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Trinity–Spadina is warned.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I heard from family doctors like Dr. Jen Bondy, who just made it under the wire, before your cuts, to join her family health team. Many of her fellow new physicians have described the medical profession as having morale at an all-time low. They feel that the Liberals have launched a systematic attack on doctors. Many are threatening to leave Ontario because of these cuts to the system.

Mr. Speaker, how can this government justify the cuts to health care? Give us the justification for these cuts.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that I think it’s important for Ontarians to know. One of them is that we have increased the physician services budget. Roughly 10 cents out of every dollar this government spends in the province goes to physician services, those hard-working front-line workers. We’ve increased that by 1.25% last year, this year by the same amount, next year by the same amount again.

We’ve asked our physicians to accept that modest increase in the overall budget. It will mean some challenges in terms of us having to make sure that we stay within that budget, but it is so that we can provide those increases to our PSWs across the province; so we can invest more in home and community care, as we are doing, $250 million more this year; and so we can continue to invest more money in mental health and addictions. I believe that the majority of physicians across this province support a sustainable health care budget and investing in other priorities.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The only physician who supports the physician cuts is the Minister of Health. The Liberal government is gutting health care in Ontario. Governance and leadership are about making priorities. Your priorities, Premier, are $2.5 billion for the Pan Am Games, $24 million for overpaid execs at Hydro One and $3.7 million to unions without a single receipt. Why is health care not a priority?

On my Windsor trip, I learned from Dr. Darren Cargill that the Windsor hospital that he works at doesn’t even have a palliative care team. We have 800,000 Ontarians without a family doctor, yet this government just cut 50 residency spots. When will this government make health care a priority?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the official opposition already knows that health care is a top priority of this government: $50 billion invested in that. We’re proud of all our health care workers, more than a quarter of a million of them around this province.

It’s simply not true that we’re changing our investments or our commitments to doctors across the province. We put 70 separate savings opportunities in front of the OMA over the course of a year of negotiations. We did not receive a single piece of advice or reply from the OMA on a single one of them. We had an independent umpire, retired Justice Warren Winkler, come forward and implore the OMA to accept the government’s fair offer at that time last fall. The OMA rejected that fair offer.

Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly indicated to the OMA that we’re prepared to negotiate with them, to sit down and have discussions. To date, the OMA has refused to continue those discussions. We implore them to do that.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last week, Ed Clark told a business crowd at a $1,000-a-plate luncheon that he wants to open our health care system to the private sector. When did the Premier give Ed Clark the mandate to open our health care system to US-style privatization?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to give the leader of the third party another example of what Ed Clark was talking about, and that is the development of skills and experience here that we have in education and health. Those can be useful to the world.

On our trip to China, there was a group from a family health team right here in Toronto. That group was signing agreements in China with medical practitioners and students there to share information, to do some training on how we have organized family health teams in some of the practices here.

That’s the kind of opportunity that we need to continue to look for because, quite frankly, the knowledge and expertise that’s been developed here of course is good for Ontarians, but it can be good for the world, Mr. Speaker. That’s what Ed Clark is talking about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, I asked the Premier about Ed Clark’s new plan to link our health care system to the private sector. While the Premier chooses to fire nurses, close beds, and is now choosing to open the door to US-style private health care, I’m proud to actually defend public health care in Ontario.

Will the Premier make it clear to Ed Clark and make it clear to the 13 million Ontarians who rely on our public health care system that health care should be about families—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and not shareholders and profits?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Actually, Speaker, I would prefer that the Premier just answer my question in the final supplementary. Ontario has been a leader in medical research for decades.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Education is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everybody knows that, and we have shared that research with the world. I am proud of that, Speaker. Whether it’s medication, whether it’s surgical techniques, people around the world benefit every day from Ontario’s leadership, and we have accomplished this within the framework of our public health care system. We should continue to share our research. We should continue to be a centre for innovation when it comes to health care, but I am proud to defend public health care in Ontario and I sure hope that this Liberal government is prepared to do the same.

And so I ask, will this Premier do the right thing and tell Ed Clark, unequivocally, that health care should be public and not private?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We defend publicly funded health care in Ontario. We stand for publicly funded health care in Ontario. But there are opportunities, and I will give the leader of the third party another example. SickKids hospital and the Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China have signed a memorandum of understanding. It’s a multi-year partnership to support neonatology. It will provide advisory services to support the design, quality improvement and workflow of a new CHFU neonatal tower. It will provide the development of education and training programs for physicians, nurses and management, to be delivered in both China and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, there’s an opportunity that, within the framework of publicly funded health care, will provide opportunity, will save lives and will benefit both China and Ontario.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats believe in publicly funded and publicly delivered health care, and that’s what we hope the Liberals are going to provide for Ontario.

My next question is to the Premier. Last week, the Minister of Finance told me that the Liberal government “will do everything necessary to maximize the potential of our assets.” Does that include selling off even more of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has, I presume, read our budget, read our platform, and understands what we are doing. She understands that Ed Clark has given us advice on leveraging Hydro One. She understands that we are committed to selling some real estate. She understands that we were committed to selling GM shares. She understands that that money is going into investments in transit across this province, in roads and bridges and infrastructure across this province.

She knows full well that we have taken the advice of the assets group, that we are broadening the ownership of Hydro One. She knows that that’s the plan. She knows we’re going ahead and implementing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Speaker, the slogan for their last week of the campaign should have been “A vote for Wynne is a vote for Hudak.”

Anyway, the Premier won’t rule out selling more assets, and her ministers keep opening the door to more sell-offs. Her unelected banker is now talking about privatizing health care and post-secondary education.

Will the Premier stop listening to bankers, start listening to people and come clean about whether or not she is planning to sell off more of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that there are some points to be gained by sort of flip comments from the leader of the third party, but we’re at a very serious juncture in this province. Our economy is in transition, and it’s in transition because of global forces. It’s not in transition because of anything that any individual company or politician has done in Ontario.

We are in transition because the nature of manufacturing is changing. We’re in transition because we need modern, updated infrastructure. We’re in transition because the world of technology has changed, and it has changed all over the world. If we don’t keep up, if we don’t make the investments that are needed at this juncture, we will fall behind. Despite the fact that we have a highly educated workforce, despite the fact that we have all the resources that we need, we will fall behind if we make the wrong decisions. The leader of the third party is counselling—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier knows exactly what she’s doing. She could rule out selling off more of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets. It would be easy to rule that out, but she will not do that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Instead, the Premier and her ministers are offering Ontarians more doublespeak.

Why won’t the Premier just be clear and transparent, as she so much indicated she was going to do from day one and hasn’t done yet? Why will she not be transparent and open with Ontarians and tell them straight up, right here in this House, if she is going to be selling off more of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows full well that we are implementing the plan that we put forward in our budget. We are implementing that plan, and in that plan we said we were going to take the advice of the assets council. We have taken that advice. We are broadening the ownership of Hydro One. There’s nothing else in the plan in terms of assets.

What I would say to the leader of the third party is that the openness we have brought to this process, by being clear that we are investing in infrastructure and that in order to do that, we needed the revenue, we needed the funds in order to be able to do that—that’s what we brought to the people of Ontario. That’s the plan we’re implementing. Because of that plan, there will be projects—there are projects—being built all over this province in rural, northern, southwestern, eastern and southern Ontario in order to make communities more viable, to make communities more attractive to businesses, and to allow us to thrive into the 21st century.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Not only is the minister continuing policies that will make hydro more expensive, but he is now centralizing power within his office. Bill 135 will effectively remove procurement and planning from the Independent Electricity System Operator and strip the Ontario Energy Board of its transmission approval authority. These bodies are supposed to be autonomous and above political manipulation. However, that all changes if Bill 135 becomes law.

My question is this: What have the IESO and the OEB done that the minister feels it is necessary to strip them of their authority, which will surely result in further unmitigated disasters and scandals in our electricity system?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I always appreciate the bombast with which my critic provides questions. Sometimes it’s important to actually look at the facts, for example.

The legislation has a process to empower the IESO to undertake competitive selection for procurement processes for electricity transmission projects when appropriate.

In terms of energy system planning, the legislation would enshrine the long-term energy planning process that was developed in 2010 and 2013 to ensure that future long-term plans are developed consistent with the principles of cost effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, and community and aboriginal engagement.

Particularly, in terms of transmission, the Independent Electricity System Operator would be authorized to plan and undertake competitive approaches for transmission selection and procurement. It gives power to the IESO in planning and procurement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s not what the industry says, Speaker. We’ve heard from expert and industry stakeholders who universally decry this undermining of the IESO and the OEB. They say this is no way to manage an energy system in the 21st century.

The smart meter program—done without the advice and expertise of the IESO—turned into yet another Liberal energy scandal, costing ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars more than was originally projected, and leaving homeowners with untrusted and unreliable devices.

Another example is the Niagara-Caledonia-Middleport transmission line, which the OEB said was unnecessary. Yet the government went ahead anyway, and now it sits unused, after costing the people of Ontario $100 million.

Will the minister tell us who will protect generators, stakeholders and ratepayers from further Liberal disasters and scandals if Bill 135 becomes law?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that he would even suggest that the IESO was not involved in inaugurating the smart meters. I happened to have been on the board of the IESO between 2007 and 2010. They in fact did all the software. They did all the work to create the smart meters. They did all the oversight in implementing smart meters. So I don’t know where he gets off by saying the IESO had nothing to do with smart meters. They created the software; they created the program; they created all the oversight for implementation. So he’d better get his facts straight.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Since the Premier is selling off Hydro One, Hydro One profits will be going to the private sector, but the bills are still coming to the province, not Hydro One. Fifteen per cent of Hydro One’s profits will go to Bay Street, but 100% of a $3-million bill for IPO-related expenses will go straight to the province. That means Ontarians will pay the bill—not Hydro One, not its new private investors.

If this is such a great deal, why are Ontario families going to be stuck paying this bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We have the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One. We just finished the IPO. We just sourced $3 billion as a result, to invest in other assets, into the Trillium Trust. We also had an additional billion dollars in special dividends just prior to the IPO, which, again, enables us to enhance the value of Hydro One and the benefit to the shareholders, 84% of which are Ontarians and the taxpayers. The broadening of ownership included—40%—retailers from Ontario.

The bottom line is, we have a company that’s now valued more, is more efficient and has greater board governance and executive control. The company is outperforming than it has ever done before, and it will continue to provide a greater benefit to us as shareholders of the company that we still have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It didn’t take long for the Premier to give in to her very powerful friends. They will get 15% of Hydro One’s profit, and they’ll pay 0% of this $3-million bill.

This bill was for the period that ended September 30. The IPO didn’t close until November 5, and the Premier is still planning to sell more. How much more will Ontario families be paying so that Bay Street investors don’t have to pay a cent?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The value of Hydro One, and the shareholders—us, as owners of this company—has now been determined at the high end. That’s net of all these other expenses that the member is speaking of.

We have just maintained and enabled this company to provide greater value, provide greater capital gains for the province that we’re now able to reinvest to produce new assets at even greater returns.

The member opposite is making claims that are actually monies that have been awarded to ourselves. We are the ones benefitting from all of this at the end, not some other mythical operation.

The fact is, the net result of this IPO has enabled us to source $3 billion more for other investments in the province while still retaining 86% ownership of the corporation.

Human rights

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Human rights are an essential staple in any democracy. Not only my constituents in Kingston and the Islands but all of Ontario should be proud of the leadership this province has—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who, please?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Oh, sorry. It’s for the Attorney General.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Sometimes I feel as though excellent leadership goes unnoticed.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the Attorney General enlighten this House on how this government has ensured that human rights are preserved for every Ontarian?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I want to thank the MPP for Kingston and the Islands for her very important question. I also agree that the defence of human rights is an essential part of our community. All Ontarians have the right to live free of discrimination, inequality and intolerance. The protection of human rights is a fundamental principle in this province.

This government has taken the most significant steps in 40 years to strengthen our human rights system, to better ensure dignity and justice for all Ontarians. Our strengthened human rights system supports these rights by better enforcing Ontario’s Human Rights Code and ensuring dignity by providing timely and efficient access to justice for those who face discrimination in our communities.

I’d like to take the opportunity to say how incredible the events were at the mosque in Peterborough on Saturday night. We are all behind this group, and we support them deeply.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. The work the province has done in this area is honourable and should be a model for other provinces. I was able to see first-hand that profound commitment to human rights and justice when the minister visited various organizations in Kingston and the Islands in the legal and social service fields.

If the Attorney General would elaborate on the mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, as well as some of the processes it uses to uphold human rights in this province, I’m sure this House would be very appreciative of the progress that has been made.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, it’s an excellent question. Through education, policy development, and research and analysis, the commission works to preserve the spirit of tolerance that has long characterized Ontario.

In 2008, the Ontario government commissioned a report in order to maximize the potential of the human rights system in the province. I am proud to say that the majority of these recommendations have been implemented.

In developing a new human rights system, we have provided quicker and more direct access for victims of discrimination. We have provided legal supports to help those who would otherwise have difficulty accessing justice. We have focused resources to address systemic human rights issues.

Human rights continue to be a priority for this government and this province.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. This Thursday marks one year since the Liberal government’s lack of winter preparedness and oversight allowed the QEW to be turned into a skating rink of traffic chaos for GTA motorists. One year later, the minister still says he has no idea what caused the mess and goes on, despite the auditor’s warning, with the same safety-compromising, cut-rate contracts his government introduced in 2009.

As tragedies mount, evidence of the contract failings multiplies to the point that we’ve now seen the second regional contract fail and quietly go back up for tender in the last six months—the second.

Two contracts have failed within half a year. Will the Premier now agree with the auditor and admit that their performance-based contracts have in fact placed the lives of Ontario motorists at risk?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’ll say in advance that my voice is a little bit weak this morning from a lingering cold.

I do appreciate the question from the member of the opposition. He referenced the Auditor General’s report from a number of months ago, asking whether or not the government agrees with the auditor’s report. Of course, that report contained eight recommendations. I said on the very day that report was released both in our press studio here in this building, but also here in this House repeatedly, that our government does accept all eight of the recommendations that the auditor brought forward.

More importantly, or as importantly, that’s why, prior to the auditor being asked to go and examine this particular program, this government took proactive action with respect to making sure that we had more resources, more equipment and more materials out on our highways. We have since done a great deal of work between last winter season and the winter season that we’re now in, Speaker. My expectation is that our contractors will perform accordingly for this winter season.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, while they talk about improvements there is no new equipment for this winter, fines levied continue to go uncollected, bare-pavement standards haven’t changed and they stick stubbornly to their same performance-based contract system that risks safety.

New Twitter sites and plow-tracking apps do nothing to help the person stuck on the highway in an accident because roads weren’t cleared.

Sudbury represents the second failed contract in the last six months. Even contractors themselves realize it’s not working. That’s why they’re dropping off the keys and walking away. That’s why the first failed contract in Kenora led to only one bidder coming forward to take the job—and, Speaker, they weren’t even from Ontario.

With the announced new RFP for Sudbury road clearing, will the Premier commit that they will not be repeating the performance-based contract mistakes that have led to so many winter tragedies for Ontario families on Ontario roads?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member opposite for the supplementary question.

I’m not quite sure where he is getting his information from, Speaker, with respect to the fact that he alleges that there is no new equipment. From the period in time before the auditor’s report right through until this upcoming winter season—actually, the winter season that we’re now technically in—there are a great number of additional pieces of equipment that have been deployed to help deal with, for example, truck-climbing lanes in the north, but also ramps and shoulders here in southern Ontario.

I find it interesting that in the first question the member would ask about the auditor’s report and then in the supplementary he would effectively mock the government for fulfilling or following through on what the auditor recommended with respect to us providing updated information through the 511 website and through the additional patrolling options that we have out there.

This is a very important upcoming winter season, the season that we’re in now. I’ve had the chance to speak to all of our contractors, as has the ministry. We expect, this season, that the people of Ontario will get the service that they expect and deserve.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Speaker, every year the chief coroner issues a report and makes important recommendations to improve the safety of our loved ones in long-term-care homes. After a 10-month delay, the latest report has been quietly posted online, and it reveals that this Liberal government is failing seniors, their families and staff in long-term-care homes. This critical report says that there is a need to increase the availability of staff for bedside care and confirms that the behavioural support teams “are not a replacement for sufficient numbers of caring staff who have time to spend with residents.”

Speaker, the Premier cannot ignore this scathing report and she cannot ignore the growing needs of our seniors in long-term-care homes. Will the Premier finally act on the urgent need to improve support for seniors and front-line staff in our long-term-care homes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Health.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question and for her advocacy.

I would also like to thank the coroner’s Geriatric and Long‐Term Care Review Committee for their hard work in producing this report. We look forward to a careful review of the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, the committee’s report essentially acknowledges what we also acknowledge, which is that the acuity of seniors in our long-term-care homes has been growing for a long time. In particular, there’s a growing incidence of aggressive behaviour. That is why we have launched, under the leadership of PA Indira Naidoo-Harris, a province-wide dementia strategy. We look forward to the findings of that report.

In the meantime, we continue to aggressively invest in Behavioural Supports Ontario, which is something that the coroner’s report acknowledges.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, again to the Premier: Every senior deserves to live in safety and dignity, but this scathing report confirms that the Liberals are failing 78,000 residents of long-term-care homes in Ontario.

The coroner is urging the government to take immediate action to address the growing needs of seniors and to finally address understaffing in long-term care. The report makes 112 urgent recommendations, and while the Premier has no obligation to even respond to this report, New Democrats are speaking up today because we all have an obligation to ensure that our seniors and long-term-care staff live and work in safety.

Will the Premier do the right thing for Ontario seniors and commit today to publically respond to all of the coroner’s recommendations before this House rises? And if not, why not?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: As I said in my previous answer, we are studying the report. It just came out recently and we are going to be reviewing all of the recommendations. In the meantime, we are going to continue going forward with consulting on our dementia strategy.

I also want to say that the report very clearly acknowledges the skill and dedication of our front-line workers in our long-term-care homes. I want to thank the report’s authors for acknowledging it, and I want to echo that.

I want to also assure this House and reassure this House that the safety of our seniors continues to be our number one priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question, the member from Ajax–Pickering.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thought I sent a message.

Carry on.

Aboriginal sports and recreation funding

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. As the member of provincial Parliament for Ajax–Pickering, I can tell you that I’m happy to be a part of the discussion around sport promotion in aboriginal communities, as some of my friends have sponsored the annual aboriginal hockey tournament just west of here—a great event.

The Community Aboriginal Recreation Activator Program, commonly known as CARA, improves the quality of life and well-being of First Nation, Inuit and Métis communities through sport and recreation. By supporting their communities through local initiatives, we help facilitate the creation of a community-driven recreation plan. With greater understanding of local needs, communities can provide solutions for regional needs for sport, recreation and wellness.

To the Minister of Tourism and Culture: Can the minister please share more about the CARA Program with us?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for the question. The Community Aboriginal Recreation Activator Program, CARA, helps to build and support strong and vibrant communities across Ontario. Through community-run programs, we help facilitate local initiatives that help encourage young people to participate in sport and recreation. Initiatives like this allow young people, throughout the communities it serves, to participate in multimedia, in sport recreation, to connect with the great outdoors, and local sport programming.

I’m happy that the CARA Program is recognized as one of the most successful programs in the communities that it serves. We’ve been able to double the participation level within these programs over the last year to bring us to 57,000 young people participating throughout Ontario. This is exactly the type of program that makes me proud to be a part of this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Minister. In its seven years of operation, the CARA Program has contributed to an improvement in wellness and improved quality of life through sport, recreation and physical activity opportunities. I’m proud of our government’s commitment to promoting sport and wellness in aboriginal communities across Ontario.

Recently, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport attended the CARA training symposium on behalf of our government—that was you, Minister—and I’m told that the CARA training symposium featured a variety of workshops and different events and offered opportunities for continued education for both sport and recreation.

Can the minister please share with the House the impact of the continued educational opportunities for CARA Program leaders? Are we doing a good job on this, Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes, we are. We’re doing a fantastic job. More importantly, the community activators throughout Ontario that are part of this program are doing an incredible job with the young people in the communities they serve.

I had the opportunity to go to the symposium two weeks ago and it was amazing to talk to these young leaders in their communities who participate in these programs. I got to watch a video of these four young women from Lac Seul, which is a First Nation community in Ontario, and to see these four young women pick up a camera and put together a music video through a partnership with the CARA Program. It was just incredible to see. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you go onto YouTube and put in “Echo My Soul,” you’ll see that they’ve got 26,000 hits on this video, and it’s part of this program. They talk about their community, their culture, and it’s through programs like this.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Right now, there are at least 14,000 adults with developmental disabilities on the wait-list for housing. The need is extremely urgent. To get help, one mother had to declare her son homeless. Another young man with autism had to be locked in a psychiatric ward.

When Global News approached the minister for her thoughts, she stated, “Are you sure you want to talk to me?” How insulting. It is the minister’s job to provide answers and hope to those affected by this crisis. Why won’t the minister provide an answer? Is it because the real answer would expose her and her government’s total and inexcusable lack of action?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m very happy to respond to the question from the member opposite.

First of all, our government recognizes the efforts and commitments of families who are supporting their adult children with developmental disabilities. We understand those challenges and we want to work with them. This is why, of course, we did establish developmental service organizations across the province: to ensure equity across the province in terms of prioritization in terms of moving to residential support services.

Of course, we also want to enable people with developmental disabilities to live and participate as fully as possible in their communities. This is why we made the investment of $810 million to help those with developmental disabilities. In fact, we are making good progress in providing new residential supports. This year alone, we have supplied 500 additional residential spaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Mr. Speaker, that kind of answer is meaningless for families suffering because of this government’s misplaced priorities. They’re cutting secret million-dollar cheques to teachers’ unions, but to the most vulnerable amongst us, they are being total tightwads. How long will it take to cut down the housing wait-list? Global asked, but the minister wouldn’t say. The Auditor General told us that at the current rate, it will take 22 years. That’s assuming nobody else joins the list. Families need housing solutions now, not decades down the road.

Speaker, will the minister apologize to families, take responsibility and start helping those most in need, and will she do it now?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do want to emphasize that families who are on the residential wait-list are already receiving some forms of support through our direct funding programs. In other words, they are receiving supports within the community to assist them while they await residential placement.

We have established a housing task force. I’ve had the opportunity to travel around the province to make announcements of these demonstration projects. Those with developmental disabilities vary considerably as individuals, as we would expect. Some people need very strong support in their communities; they may have complex medical needs. So we’re looking at innovative ways to house individuals in their communities, working in partnership with the community agencies that they need. We have some 12 demonstration projects, and we will have another 12 very shortly.

Pension plans

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Some 20,000 pensioners who worked for US Steel and their families have had their pension benefits cut off since October. The Minister of Finance rose in this House to say that the government was going to kick in $3 million over six months as a transition fund. The problem is, nobody really knows how this transition fund is being administered or how to access the help these pensioners desperately need, the help the minister has promised.

Pensioners are now writing to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, in fact, and to the company, not knowing where it is that they should be turning to get the help that was promised by the Minister of Finance.

Nearly two months after these benefits were cut, will the Premier tell this House where the $3 million in help that she and her minister promised to the pensioners is?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I also wish to acknowledge the work that’s being done by the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek—for his good work and advocacy on that side of the bench. We recognize that working together and collaboratively, we can help those most in need, and that’s what is happening here.

The government of Ontario has been at the table, has been trying to encourage support for those families. That’s why we’ve earmarked the $3 million, to support the transition that is going forward. But it’s a longer-term process than that. We’re trying to enable this operation to be a going concern, to enable those families, those workers, to continue working, and finding ways to make it so.

The industry is in flux. It’s not just US Steel; it’s the industry and the sector in its entirety. We’re reviewing all of that. That has huge implications for the well-being of many families. I recognize the concerns that the leader of the third party is making. We share them, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this minister offered $3 million in transitional help. Al