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

June 7, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Jun-07 (PDF)

L183 - Tue 7 Jun 2016 / Mar 7 jun 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 June 2016 Mardi 7 juin 2016

Wearing of jerseys

Introduction of Visitors

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Reception

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Government advertising

Electoral reform

Treaties recognition

Hydro rates

Water quality

Agri-food industry

Service fees

Youth mental health services

Softwood lumber

Bear hunting

Deferred Votes

Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des élections municipales

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

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of jerseys

Disclosure of information

Members’ Statements

St. John Ambulance

Mental health and addiction services

Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski

Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski

Aboriginal education

Refugees

Clint Thomas

Portugal Day

Walk a Mile in Her Shoes

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Justice Policy / Comité permanent de la justice

Introduction of Bills

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Trailers), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (remorques)

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Careless Driving), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (conduite imprudente)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Consideration of Bill 201

Committee membership

Petitions

Stray current

Curriculum

Natural gas

Environmental protection

Government anti-racism programs

Hospital funding

Privatisation des biens publics

GO Transit

Committee membership

Visitor

Orders of the Day

Ontario Down Syndrome Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée ontarienne de la trisomie 21

Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le comité consultatif de la Loi Rowan

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Wearing of jerseys

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I have a point of order that you may like. I believe you will find we have unanimous consent that members of the Esso Cup-winning Brantford Ice Cats be permitted to wear their jerseys in the House today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to allow the Ice Cats to wear their jerseys in the House. Do we agree? Agreed. Why, thank you very much.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ve jumped the gun. I haven’t even introduced them yet.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to introduce guests from the Ontario Association of Optometrists: the president, Dr. Jeff Goodhew, and my good friend Doug DeRabbie.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome the Oakville Provincial Youth Advisory Committee to Queen’s Park this morning. Joining us is Daniel Park, Colten Slater, Amy Davies, Konstantin Lenz Gil, Kevin Zhou, Justine Jasnich, Victoria Glista, Brad Cooke and a member of my staff accompanying them, Judy Rivard. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park, Speaker.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s a great pleasure to introduce in the House, on behalf of the MPP from Mississauga–Brampton South, Amrit Mangat, page captain Alina Saleh; her mother, Saiqa Saleh; her father, Naeem Saleh; and sister Rania Saleh. They are here in our gallery. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: They’re not here yet and I wish they could be, but I am really pleased to welcome the grade 10 civics classes from F.E. Madill Secondary School in Wingham and their teachers, Ms. Matchett and Mrs. Payne. They’ll be here shortly, though.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think everybody could be a little late this morning.

Our page captain this morning is Katelyn Recagno. Her father, Keiron Recagno, and her granddad Francis Recagno are joining us in the public gallery. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): According to the unanimous consent, I will now introduce officially. I am honoured today to host special guests from Brantford. In the Speaker’s gallery are the Brantford Ice Cats, the hockey team who won a gold trophy for the national female midget championship. The players here this morning are: Emma, Olivia, Jillian, Katrina, Emily, Avery, Paige, Chenelle, Brooklyn, Lauren, Taylor, Avery, Nicole, Paige and Kayla. With them are the staff and parents.

Congratulations on the national championship. We’re very proud of the young ladies. There will be a photo being taken on the steps if anyone wants to do that after question period.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today I’ve laid upon the table a report from the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario entitled Backgrounder: Ontario Service Fees in 2016-17.

Reception

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ve just distributed on everyone’s desk an invitation for this evening, between 5:30 and 6:30, in my room, 451, to celebrate the passage of Rowan’s Law, hopefully, with the family of Rowan Stringer and hockey legend Eric Lindros. I hope all members will think about coming.

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

It’s time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock revealed that the Liberal government has invested only $190,000 of the funds they promised to fight human trafficking. This was on the same day that we learned the government spent nearly $1 million on David Herle, the Liberals’ preferred pollster—interesting priorities for this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Premier tell the women who were forced into trafficking why it is more important to reward their Liberal crony David Herle?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m very pleased with what our government is doing about human trafficking. Like I said yesterday, it’s a real tragedy.

I was with my colleague from Ottawa Centre at the opening of a consultation on human trafficking.

It’s unbelievable. We don’t know enough about human trafficking. We should know a lot more about human trafficking because it’s happening in our communities and it’s happening all over the province and the country.

Our government has a coordinated approach to combat human trafficking and raise awareness of this issue, including initiatives focused on prevention, enforcement and support for victims.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out to the member opposite, when they were in power—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier: The money that this Liberal government and the Premier gave to David Herle and the Gandalf Group could have taken 18 children off the IBI treatment wait-list for this year. David Herle’s polling might have told you that cutting IBI is a good idea, but real parents say otherwise.

David Herle’s payout could have hired 27 educational assistants for special-needs students. If you look at the Limestone District School Board, they are losing approximately $1 million in funding for special education next year. David Herle’s reward could have covered that shortfall for those special education students in Kingston.

My question is for the Deputy Premier: Why is paying a Liberal crony, a Liberal campaign chair, with precious taxpayer dollars more important than investing in children?

Interjections.

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

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I just wanted to talk about what we’re doing in this ministry about human trafficking—not just this ministry, but this government, because we all work together.

When they were in power, their budget was—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will do something about it.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: When they were in government, their budget was $30 million. In our government, it’s $67 million, and it will continue to increase.

This government is actively working on a long-term, survivor-centred strategy to combat human trafficking, co-led by Minister Naqvi and Minister MacCharles. I know that the approach will be survivor-centred, responsive to needs on the ground and developed in collaboration with other levels of government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock. A reminder to everyone, but in particular this minister, that when I stand, you sit.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier, but let me say, first of all, that answer wasn’t even remotely close to the question—not even remotely.

My question is, after being forced to cut $8 million, the Royal Victoria hospital—

Interjections.

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

Please carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: After being forced to cut $8 million, the Royal Victoria hospital was given a paltry $500,000 in new funding this year. Yet we know that Liberal partisan hack David Herle received nearly double that.

The cost to operate a hospital bed can be nearly $300,000 a year. The cash the Liberal pollster received could have covered several beds that you closed at Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital.

So the question to the Deputy Premier is very clear: Do you think it’s appropriate that the Premier took taxpayer dollars and gave them to their Liberal campaign help? It’s about abusing taxpayer dollars. Is that right? How can you justify that?

Interjections.

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

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think if the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is suggesting that government ought not do public opinion polling, I beg to differ. I think it’s important that the government of the day do public opinion research, because it’s about listening to people. It’s about understanding what issues are important to people.

All public opinion research conducted by the government of Ontario is procured through a fair and transparent, competitive process. Every company must be a qualified bidder, a vendor of record, and compete for a project against no less than five competitors.

The final decision about which vendor is best suited for a project is made by a committee of at least three non-partisan public servants. That is the process that we follow, and that is the appropriate process to follow.

Energy policies

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Every time we question the Premier about her irresponsible plan to phase out natural gas and cost Ontario families $3,000 more a year, she says, “Don’t worry. We’re actually expanding.” Now, this morning, it’s net-zero buildings by 2030. The fastest way to get to net zero: remove natural gas.

Today, we received two letters addressed to the cabinet and the Premier about the Premier’s hidden agenda. The first one is from Union Gas president Steve Baker. It says, “Without positive certainty about the long-term role of natural gas in Ontario, we will need to re-evaluate our ... proposed natural gas community expansion.”

Speaker, how does the Deputy Premier or this government plan on expanding natural gas without having Union Gas on board?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On this side of the House, we are committed to taking action when it comes to climate change. We are all paying the price in higher insurance rates. I think everyone on this side of the House is committed to taking action.

On your side of the House, you think that putting a little bit of green in the logo is enough to satisfy climate change.

We are taking action. Let me say one more time that we are not forcing anyone off natural gas. We are committed to expanding natural gas to parts of the province where there is not now access to natural gas—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve asked for order twice. The member from—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Lanark.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —Lanark. The member from Lanark, I’m glad you’re listening to me now.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Time is up for the question.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Deputy Premier: Here is what the Deputy Premier doesn’t seem to understand. Until the government answers the question—will they change the building code to phase out natural gas?—businesses and families will plan for the worst. Families in Kincardine will have to pay $3,000 a year just to heat their homes because they won’t get the access they were promised. Businesses in Sault Ste. Marie and St. Catharines are facing an uncertain future because of this Premier’s hidden agenda.

Speaker, the Liberals have not spent a single dollar on natural gas expansion, and now Union Gas won’t invest. To the Deputy Premier: Will she guarantee that they will not change the building code to phase out natural gas? Yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First off, again, we are not eliminating natural gas. And our partners, if you look at the leadership of companies like Enbridge and Gaz Métropolitain, are working on net-zero buildings, of which natural gas is major part. Minister of Housing McMeekin—we were in a net-zero building that uses natural gas. I’m sorry that they’re not more literate about the technology.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew asked the question; therefore, I’m surprised he is not listening to the answer. Come to order, please.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our plan costs $13 a month. Their plan costs $107 a month because they won’t wink to other jurisdictions, and they have no money to help people out—no money to help people retrofit their homes. What they’re giving Ontarians is nada, nothing. They have no serious plan, but they have a way to jack up profits.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister seems to think that all this money they’re going to give out just comes out of the sky.

Speaker, the second letter we received was from the president of Can Art Aluminum. They employ 350 people here in Ontario and are expanding in Lakeshore to employ another 86, but they rely on natural gas to operate their business. Without an assurance that natural gas will have a place in Ontario for decades to come, they will have no choice but to look to expand in the United States, with the real possibility of moving all their business there.

They need the Deputy Premier to categorically, and without reservation, state that they have long-term access to natural gas. Deputy Premier, will they have access to natural gas for decades to come, or should they tell their 486 employees here in Ontario to pack their bags?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: That’s an easy question: Yes, period. We are working across sectors on all kinds of exciting new technologies offered by Sifton in London and Royalpark Homes in Barrie, who are building net-zero buildings, including those with natural gas. Nova Corp.: hundreds of millions of dollars in investment to do some of the most advanced cogen, low-carbon work. They just won a minister’s excellence award with natural gas.

I am sorry that the only plan they can come up with is to take $107 million from every Ontario family, cut every program for EVs, leave working families with no help to retrofit their buildings and cancel all the social housing retrofit programs. They will net-zero and disable Ontario’s working families. That’s what they give them.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Ricardo Montalbán for Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t risk it.

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Across Ontario, hospital beds are being closed, nurses are being fired and wait times are increasing. But instead of properly funding hospitals, in 2014 and the first 10 months of 2015, the Liberals spent over $2.2 million on health care polling.

Why is the priority on polling and not on patients?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the investments that we’re making in our health care system—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: A billion dollars.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: A billion dollars was added to the budget this fiscal year, $345 million added specifically to our hospitals.

But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting that the leader of the third party purports to care so deeply about our health care system. She was in North Bay, as we know, the past weekend, and she was commenting about the state of that hospital, that brand new hospital which employs over 2,000 individuals and is getting outcomes which are better, in most cases, than across the country.

Yet, she spoke about that hospital and she did it from an OPSEU office. She didn’t even take the time or bother to visit the hospital or speak to the leader of the hospital about her concerns, and this is what we’re seeing. We’re seeing this as a trend that’s emerging, these fly-by smears where she tries to destabilize the health care system in a community that she visits.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister is doing enough to destabilize the health care in this province and in this particular community, much better than anybody else can destabilize health care. The minister is doing quite a good job himself.

Over the last few weeks, I have met with many, many people, in fact, across Ontario, in all kinds of offices and in all kinds of hospitals. Over and over they tell me that the health of their families is a top concern. That means that hospitals need funding that keeps up with inflation and keeps up with the growing population.

Does this Premier, Deputy Premier, or Minister of Health—does this Liberal government need $2.2 million in polling to know that when people go to the hospital, they want the care given to them that they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We know that all parties, when they form government over decades, do polling to establish what the priorities of the population of this province are. In fact, with our Patients First agenda, it’s critically important that we find effective ways to reach out to Ontarians, including through polling, to find out specifically what they need.

We want to actually change the health care system so it’s not focused on programs or silos or health care professionals. It’s focused on what’s best for the individual, what’s best for the patient, their caregivers, their families, the communities. So we’re looking at things through that different lens. We’re making sure that we’ve got strong representation on all our committees and task forces and advisory councils, outpatients and patient advocates. We’re doing polling of patients, of Ontarians, so we can understand their experience and how we can improve the health care system to better serve them.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s a news flash: No matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter how much money you make, your health and the health of your family members and loved ones is your top priority. That’s the bottom line.

Ontario hospitals need more than $3 billion of critical repair work. Beds are being closed in communities from one end of this province to another. Nurses are being fired in communities across Ontario. There’s a silent crisis in health care, and you don’t need an opinion poll to tell you that.

Will this Liberal government start properly funding our hospitals so that people can actually get the care that they need?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: If there’s a silent crisis, it’s the one that’s promulgated, that’s perpetuated, that is created by the third party as they travel around this province and they meet with interest groups and they don’t even meet with hospital officials.

They use figures such as 1,400 nurses having lost their jobs last year when all of us know, and I’ve repeated countless times, that when you look at the independent information provided by the College of Nurses of Ontario—whom I would rather trust with that factual information any day over OPSEU or the Ontario Health Coalition—in fact, 3,000 net new nursing jobs have occurred last year in this province, not the 1,400 losses that they purport, that they claim is the reality in their fantasy world.

I’m working hard to make sure that we deal with the facts, that we’re making the critical investments, not these drive-by smears that are creating anxiety across this province—

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. But I have to say, it’s important to me with patients, it’s important to me with health care providers and it’s important to me with executives who operate the hospitals, because that’s who has the information in terms of the state of repairs—the terrible state of repairs—of this hospital system here in this province. That is at the feet of this government and this minister.

In the next 20 years, however, more than three million people are expected to move into the GTHA. That’s like doubling the size of Toronto. Hospital care is already stretched far too thin, and it’s going to have to stretch even more. Why isn’t hospital funding keeping up with population growth in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping up with the growth in population. The Premier just last fall went to the opening of the brand new Humber River Hospital, a more than $3-billion investment. There was roughly $3 billion for the brand new Oakville hospital, which the Premier, alongside myself, was proud to open last fall as well.

We’re making investments. We have 35 capital investments either under way or in various stages of planning across the province to make sure that we continue to provide that quality care. We’re increasing the budget of the health care ministry, including the hospital line item, each year, unlike the party opposite when they were in government. For the last two years, they cut hospital funding; they cut funding in their health care budget for the final year. Some 4,000 nurses lost their jobs under them.

We’re building this province up. We’re building the infrastructure and the human resources.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, all they’re building is their own fantasy world. That’s not the experience of the people of this province when it comes to health care, when it comes to hospital care.

In fact, more than three million more people are expected to arrive in the GTHA over the next two decades, but hospital care is not keeping up. The only way that works out is if fewer people get care or if everyone gets less care.

Before the Legislature rises, I am asking this Liberal government, the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Deputy Premier to fund hospitals, to actually make the commitment to funding hospitals to keep up with growing costs and population growth. Make that commitment so that we know we have a hospital system that will be there for the people of this province when they need it.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we are investing in our hospitals—$12 billion over the next decade in capital investments. We are investing in repairs and maintenance and renovations, increasing that by $50 million to $175 million each year.

But that’s what I don’t understand. If hospitals—which we need to recognize are only part of our health care system; we’re investing an additional 5%, or $250 million this year in home and community care. If hospitals are so important to the third party, why did they vote against our budget, which had such significant allocations—another billion dollars to health care and $345 million to hospitals alone?

We’re seeing the outcomes. We’re seeing the positive outcomes. We have among the lowest, if not the lowest, wait times in all of Canada. We’re seeing the outcomes as a result of our transformation towards more quality of care as well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, we’ve seen the outcomes, and they are nothing to be proud of, I can tell you that. I can guarantee you that.

Our population is growing and hospital funding is not keeping up. In Scarborough, emergency rooms are already seeing three times more patients than they were built for. Now imagine adding the population of a second city of Toronto into the GTHA.

Will this Liberal government do the right thing and start properly funding hospitals to keep up with the growing costs and the growing population?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would ask the third party to do the right thing and finally support a budget of this government that actually allocates significant billions of dollars to health care—a billion dollars this year alone, $345 million in hospitals. It’s important, and we are investing in hospitals. I referenced 35 hospital investments, capital improvements, either under way in this province right now or in the planning stage.

We’re making those investments, but we’re also making investments to keep people in the home and the community: a 5% increase in home and community care; $85 million for retention and recruitment of nurses, nurse practitioners and allied health care professionals.

I have to say that I’m surprised that, despite the incredible hard work that our health care professionals are doing, the leader of the third party is suggesting somehow that that work isn’t yielding positive outcomes.

Government advertising

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Speaker, I’m sure you remember when the Liberals rewrote Ontario’s advertising laws last year. At that time, the Auditor General warned that these changes would remove independent oversight and flood the province with partisan ads to promote the political interests of the Liberal Party.

Last week’s climate ad with David Suzuki marks a troubling start. In fact, the Auditor General said that this ad was so partisan that she would have banned it if she still had the power to do so.

Does the Deputy Premier really think it’s appropriate for taxpayer-funded ads to feature people like David Suzuki, who have endorsed and actively campaigned for the Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Climate change, in my opinion, is not a partisan issue. Climate change is something that we are all in together.

Now, I do understand that the party opposite, the PC Party, is in a bit of an identity crisis.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He’s campaigned for you—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, second time.

Please, finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The PC Party is in a bit of an identity crisis. They are not sure where they stand on this issue, and they certainly are not sure where their leader stands on this issue. When the leader speaks for the caucus, we instantly hear about caucus members saying, “Actually, you’re not speaking for me.”

On this side of the House, we are committed to addressing climate change. The cost of taking no action is too large. Climate change is not partisan. You can’t just put—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated. The bantering back and forth is going to have to stop—on both sides.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Deputy Premier: We all remember Dalton McGuinty strolling through Stanley Park with David Suzuki and the endorsement video that followed. The Liberals were forced to pull the video because it violated the Canada Revenue Agency guidelines. But here we are again: The Liberals produced another ad that once again breaks the rules, laid out by the CRA, that specifically prohibit charitable organizations, like David Suzuki’s, from engaging in partisan activities. But that didn’t stop the Liberals from making Mr. Suzuki the star of an ad so partisan that the Auditor General said that it should be banned.

Are the Liberals really so arrogant that they think they can break the Canada Revenue Agency guidelines?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, I first want to say that, when we came into office, we were one of the only jurisdictions in the world, and remain one of the only jurisdictions in the world, to limit partisan advertising. We were driven to do that because we all remember those ads where Mike Harris attacked teachers. We did not want that to happen again, and it will not happen again. I’m proud that we’re one of the few jurisdictions in the world to legislate against partisan ads.

When it comes to David Suzuki, we are very grateful to David Suzuki for participating in this ad and for his advocacy. He was paid his standard fee, according to ACTRA rules, and he has indicated that his fees are going to be donated to the residents of Fort McMurray. I don’t know what this member has against David Suzuki supporting the residents of Fort McMurray.

Electoral reform

Ms. Catherine Fife: This question is to the Acting Premier. The Premier wrote Ontario’s electoral reform bill without any actual consultation, and now we see the results. Yesterday, Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer said that the Liberal legislation would restrict advertising that has nothing to do with elections.

This so-called “activist centre” Premier wrote legislation that would put significant restrictions on parents concerned with autism or people calling for the cleanup of Grassy Narrows, but no restrictions on partisan government ads. This is exactly why a non-partisan panel should have consulted with experts before drafting this legislation.

Will the Acting Premier commit to making significant changes to this Liberal plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I don’t think that the member opposite really needs a lecture on how the parliamentary process works. I think she’s quite aware. She has been a member for some time. When a matter is before a committee, of course the members of the committee have the opportunity to make changes to that particular bill.

In this particular instance, we have—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, in this particular matter, we have taken a very open, transparent and credible process to ensure that Ontarians, during the summer months, have the opportunity to provide their points of view. Yesterday, Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer presented at the committee. He noted that our proposed legislation represents the most significant redesign of Ontario election finance law in more than 40 years. We thank the officer for his testimony yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: So the process is flawed and the legislation is flawed.

Back to the Acting Premier: In addition to raising significant concerns with how the Premier’s office has decided to restrict advertising that may actually have nothing to do with elections, the Chief Electoral Officer said that he was concerned about whether Liberal legislation treats government advertising as political advertising or whether the Liberals are exempting it. This is a legitimate concern.

The Liberals created a loophole for themselves to flood the airwaves with publicly funded self-promotional ads, but they’re putting tight limits on non-partisan ads about issues of public concern, like Grassy Narrows, autism therapy or climate change. Will the Premier be using her majority to push through a flawed piece of legislation?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s interesting to hear from the NDP, who refused to engage and participate in the process that resulted in the creation of the legislation because they were more interested to stall the process so they could continue with their $10,000 private fundraisers, as they continue to do. The NDP needs to come clean.

This is what the Chief Electoral Officer said yesterday. He said that he was supportive of the government decision to refer the bill to the committee immediately for first reading. He remarked, “This provides both the committee and the people who appear before it the opportunity to consider the legislation from first principles.”

Speaker, we are using the democratic institutions to ensure that the people of Ontario have a voice. It’s time—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It is time that the NDP stop heckling and start participating in this democratic process and making sure that we reform the election financing rules in this province.

Treaties recognition

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Let’s go, Louie.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. If we’re going to play that game, I’m going to too—highly inappropriate.

Carry on.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last week, we saw the Premier make a historic apology for Ontario’s role in the horrible legacy of residential schools. Notably, our government unveiled a new action plan for reconciliation in partnership with indigenous people. I’m proud to see such a strong commitment from our government towards renewing and improving our relationship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in a respectful way.

I understand that one of our steps toward reconciliation is a commitment to promote a greater public awareness of indigenous histories and rights and the importance of treaty relationships. Can the minister please tell us how the government is working to promote a better understanding of our shared history with indigenous people?

Hon. David Zimmer: I thank the member for that question.

Last week, I had the pleasure of introducing legislation to declare the first week in November as Treaties Recognition Week in Ontario. I was proud to see it pass in all three readings with the unanimous support of all parties.

Treaties such as the Williams Treaties were fundamental in shaping the province as we know it today. Ontario is unique in Canada because of both the numbers and the variety of the treaties, with 46 treaties and land purchases covering most of the province.

That is why we are committed to promoting a broader understanding of their importance and to build a greater awareness of treaty relationships here. Treaties Recognition Week will provide a recurring opportunity for students, teachers and the broader public to engage with each other on the importance of treaties. Treaties are foundational documents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s great to hear that our government is committed to working to promote a more comprehensive understanding of reconciliation and the importance that treaties continue to play in Ontario.

I know that the chief of Alderville First Nation, Chief Jim Bob Marsden, in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, is especially pleased to hear that developing broader awareness of the treaty relationship is important for this government. I hope that when we celebrate Treaties Recognition Week in November, Ontarians will take an opportunity to learn more about the important role that treaties played in the history of our province.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what initiatives will this government take to promote a broader understanding of the treaty relationship during Treaties Recognition Week?

Hon. David Zimmer: This legislation is just one part of Ontario’s broader strategy to revitalize the treaty relationship in the pursuit of reconciliation. We are committed to promoting a stronger public awareness of treaties, their importance to our shared history, and how they have shaped this province.

That is why we are working with indigenous partners to support learning opportunities on the history of residential schools and the treaty relationship, within the provincial educational curriculum. We are supporting these curriculum initiatives with tools such as the 11,000 First Nations and treaty maps that we have distributed to all schools in Ontario.

When we celebrate Treaties Recognition Week in November, we are all marking another important step on the journey towards reconciliation that we must all take together. It is necessary.

Hydro rates

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, I want to tell you for a second about Stanpac. They’re a manufacturer in my riding, in Smithville, close to where I live. They make specialty tamper-evident packaging. This is in huge demand. We want to make sure we have safe food packaging, particularly in the States.

So here’s the catch: They have a plant in Smithville, which I mentioned. They also have one in Texas. The recent hydro bills in April showed the cost per kilowatt hour in Ontario was 13.7 cents, all in. In Texas, it was 6.9 cents, all in. Sadly, it’s more than twice as expensive now in Ontario because of your expensive energy schemes.

When they hear about even more ideas to make life more expensive for consumers and businesses, what should I tell them? I want them to invest in Ontario. You’re making it expensive. I’m worried those jobs will go to the United States.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the question from the member. There are some differences across North America, but in terms of industrial electricity prices in North America, we are extremely competitive. We are more competitive than some of our northern US states. The numbers have been verified: The IESO and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have looked at the comparables.

I will say that our Jobs and Prosperity Fund is used to help attract companies to Ontario. In some US jurisdictions, they lower the price in order to attract them. If you look at what we’re providing from the Jobs and Prosperity Fund and compare it to a number of US jurisdictions, we have much stronger—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Why are they leaving?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, they’re asking why they’re leaving. Ontario is attracting more direct investment than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey, please come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: What I worry about is that the government’s hydro policies are making America great again and not the province of Ontario. It seems to be catching on.

Look, I’ll be glad to provide the minister with a copy of the bills. He says that we’re extremely competitive. Here’s the evidence between the plants in Texas and Ontario where the costs are more than twice as high. This annualizes to $650,000 a year. I would much rather see that invested in new equipment, creating more good jobs in the province of Ontario.

Then when they hear this latest scheme, where there seems to be a strange, ideological hostility towards natural gas, making life more expensive for Ontario’s manufacturers—I mean, it’s one thing on top of another. I worry that the last one out is going to turn off the lights, Minister.

How about this: Why don’t we make life more affordable for Ontarians and make it more attractive for manufacturers, with affordable hydro and natural gas?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m sure some US states are pointing to northern Ontario because they have such low industrial electricity rates. I was in Timmins two weeks ago, where we announced some winners under the IEI Program. To finance mines, they’re getting 50% off their hydroelectricity in northern Ontario.

If you want some examples of jurisdictions that have higher prices than Ontario, they include New York, Indiana, Wyoming, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia in terms of industrial, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and many more.

Water quality

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

Last week, I asked the Premier to explain how it can be acceptable that First Nations people in 90 communities in Ontario still don’t have access to clean drinking water. Her answer was that it is unacceptable, she knows there’s a problem, and they’re working on it.

Today, internationally respected Human Rights Watch, which normally does its work in Sudan and Afghanistan, was actually looking at us. They released a special report on the unacceptable water situation for Ontario’s First Nations people.

After 13 years in power, what has this government done to clean the contaminated drinking water of First Nations people in 90 communities?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that very important question. The Ontario government is working closely with our federal partners in Ottawa on this clean water issue.

I can tell you that, to date, this commitment has been demonstrated in many ways. For instance, Ontario provides support to First Nations on water issues in some of the following ways:

The Ontario Clean Water Agency provides operations and maintenance services on a fee-for-service basis.

The Walkerton Clean Water Centre provides operator training on cost recovery.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has provided engineering and technical advice to some First Nations and carries out performance reviews of proposals for First Nations systems upon request.

There are seven First Nations included in the Showcasing Water Innovation program in which Ontario is funding innovative, cost-effective solutions for managing drinking water, waste water and stormwater.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: When I started here nine years ago, there were 90 First Nations communities on a boil-water advisory. I stand here today, Speaker, and there are 90 First Nations communities on a boil-water advisory.

In fact, youth from Grassy Narrows had to travel thousands of kilometres to come here last week to plead with this government, once again, to clean up the mercury that’s poisoning their river and lake that they depend on. Grassy Narrows, not surprisingly, was featured in this Human Rights Watch report for the world to see. They could also see that mothers have babies with infected skin rashes from the contaminated water. They can’t even clean or dress the wounds because the water is not clean.

That’s not in a Third World country, Speaker. That’s right here, right now, in Ontario, for the world to see. It is a vicious cycle that First Nations people want to end.

My question is simple: Will the Premier do as Human Rights Watch said and fix the drinking water for Attawapiskat, Pikangikum, for Bearskin, for Koocheching, for Kejick Bay, for—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, the number of First Nation reserves in Ontario without access to safe drinking water is unacceptable to this government. We are going to work with our federal partners and fix this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think you anticipated my standing. Thank you.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, in furtherance of that commitment, I can tell you that on April 25, Ontario convened a trilateral meeting on drinking water with the federal government and Ontario First Nations. At that trilateral meeting, all parties agreed to advance technical work to improve drinking water on reserves through a trilateral process.

It’s important that this problem be dealt with by the federal government, the Ontario government and our indigenous partners. That’s why we are committed to this. We all understand that everyone in Ontario has a right to clean drinking water.

Agri-food industry

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, Ontario is celebrating Local Food Week this week, from June 6 to June 12. It’s a great opportunity to celebrate all the foods and beverages that are grown, produced and made here in Ontario. We have much to celebrate, like farmers’ markets across the province that are now able to sell Ontario wines, craft ciders and fruit wines. If the $1.4 million that the 84 VQA wineries generated at 215 farmers’ markets in the last two years is any indication, this will be a popular draw to the markets and help support local economies.

It has already been three years since this House passed the Local Food Act. Can the minister please provide an update on how Ontario’s agri-food sector has grown since the Local Food Act was passed?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for that farm-fresh question. I had the pleasure of touring the member’s riding last month to visit some of the food and beverage manufacturers there.

I want to wish everybody in this Legislature, including you, Mr. Speaker, a happy Local Food Week, our third since passing the Local Food Act with all-party support a number of years ago.

The Local Food Act supports our local food strategy to strengthen Ontario’s local food sector from the farmstead to the grocery store and everywhere in between, and it’s working. In the past two years, our province’s agri-food sector has added $1.3 billion to Ontario’s GDP and created 34,000 new jobs. Ontario consumers are becoming more aware of local food options: 81% of them can identify Ontario-grown produce at grocery stores, and eight out of 10 shoppers are likely to purchase fresh, Ontario-grown food.

Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say that we’re making progress. Good things grow in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thanks to the minister for his response.

Ontario’s agri-food sector supports more than 780,000 jobs across the province. These are jobs found in communities, both urban and rural, from Temiskaming to Simcoe, from Leamington to Peterborough.

Local food champions across the province are helping spread the word that buying local helps grow the economy and jobs. I think of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which in 2015 launched the Six by Sixteen initiative to teach young people how to prepare six locally sourced, healthy meals by the time they are 16 years old, and, of course, Brian Fernandez, who unleashed Ontarians’ and Canadians’ love for Leamington tomatoes with his Facebook post on French’s ketchup.

Yesterday, the government released the 2015-16 Local Food Report. Can the minister inform the House of the contents of the report and whether Ontario is moving forward on its local food goals?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for her question and her great work to support food processors in her community.

Yesterday, I was at Hawthorne Food and Drink, a Feast ON-certified restaurant here in Toronto, to release this year’s Local Food Report. I’m glad the member mentioned the OFA and Mr. Fernandez. They’re both featured in the Local Food Report.

This year’s report highlights progress we’ve made since last year. For example, we launched the Local Food Investment Fund as part of the $6 million in funding for the Greenbelt Fund. Farmers’ markets at ONroute locations along the 401 attracted 185,000 visitors last year.

Mr. Speaker, the agri-food sector is poised for growth. For example, in 2017, French’s will begin bottling ketchup in Ontario, in East York, the home of my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Potts. We also know that Highbury Canco in Leamington, Ontario is rapidly approaching employment levels that existed at the former Heinz plant.

I encourage all members to read the Local Food Report and to continue promoting the good things that grow in Ontario. As the—

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

New question.

Service fees

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Premier. Last week, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed this government is actively withholding documents for political gain.

This morning, he confirmed this government is nickel-and-diming the people of Ontario through skyrocketing service fee increases. The FAO noted that service fees will cost families $2.74 billion this year, an increase of almost 39% from just 2011.

We know that “service fee” is just another name for “tax.” Because of this government, families are already burdened with soaring costs of living, including the highest energy costs in North America.

I ask the Deputy Premier: Why is she intent on making life harder and more unaffordable for Ontario families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’d like to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his commentary.

Service fees are a means of ensuring that the costs of providing a program or service that has an individual benefit are paid by the beneficiary of that program rather than by taxpayers in general. It is cost recovery.

The Auditor General did a report in 2009 and reported that our fees were among the lowest in the country, and that in most cases, the service fee revenue recovers only a part of the associated costs, Speaker. That results in hidden subsidies that direct funding away from government priorities such as health care and education.

As the CROPS report—the Don Drummond report—and the Auditor General’s report recommended, Ontario’s service fees will be adjusted annually to keep up with inflation. I think that’s fair to everyone.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the deputy: Your budget increased service fees on nearly everything in the province. However, once again, the FAO noted that this government is refusing to disclose data on the skyrocketing service fees. He even questioned whether the service fee hikes are “legally non-compliant.”

If you drive a car, you’ll pay more. If you heat your home with gas, you’ll pay more. If you camp or fish or hunt, you’ll pay more. Rather than making life more affordable for Ontario families, students and seniors, this government is obsessed with finding new revenue to pay for their years of waste, scandal and mismanagement.

I ask the deputy again—

Laughter.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s very funny, isn’t it?

I ask the deputy again: Will she end the excessive service fee hikes and tax increases that are making life more affordable for families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I find the question interesting, because the Auditor General also said that Ontario has the lowest per capita spending, in terms of revenue, in all of Canada. We receive less revenue from the rest of our taxes and service fees than any other province, and yet we’re coming to balance—oh, and by the way, we’re offering free tuition to our students.

We have not indexed our service fees to inflation. We’ve taken those things into account to make everyday life easier for Ontario families. The member opposite voted against those very measures to maintain the lowest revenue base of any province. He also voted against free tuition and grants and supports for families. Yet he stands here to ask the question, knowing full well that Ontario is the lowest in all of Canada.

Youth mental health services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier. The communities of Woodstock and Oxford county are currently battling an ongoing crisis with youth suicide. Since the start of this year, at least five youths under age 20 have committed suicide, and 20 others have attempted suicide.

Today, students at secondary schools in those communities are walking out of their classrooms to send this government a clear message: Stop the suicide crisis before another life is lost.

Will the Acting Premier listen to these students who are walking out of classes in protest this morning and commit to immediately increasing health resources in Woodstock and Oxford county?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for this very important question.

My heart goes out to the families affected by youth suicide in Oxford. I think we can all agree that even one child who dies by suicide—one child who attempts suicide—is too many. We will commit to supporting this community. That is part of our broader strategy with respect to our Ontario youth suicide prevention plan.

We have a number of resources that are in place for this community right now. Through the Oxford-Elgin Child and Youth Centre—it’s our mental health lead agency for that community—they’re delivering services as we speak. They provide crisis support services. That’s available 24 hours, seven days a week. They provide other grief services that can be accessed without an appointment. They’re providing counselling and therapy services as well as intensive treatment services.

Again, my heart—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Acting Premier: For years, we’ve been telling this government that London and surrounding communities are facing serious shortages in mental health supports and services. In my riding alone, mental health patients are sleeping on emergency room floors and facing shuttered facilities, overcapacity clinics and group home deaths. It’s time your ministry re-evaluates the way you’re delivering mental health services in this province.

These students in Woodstock are all so frustrated about the lack of mental health supports that they are walking out of their classrooms this morning. Even our children are clear that this is government is failing them. Not one more death or suicide is acceptable.

Will the Acting Premier commit to immediately providing supports, services and staff to Woodstock and Oxford counties to stop this youth suicide crisis?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to express our sincere condolences to the families, friends, classmates, teachers—the entire community, which has been having a very difficult time.

I’d like to thank the member for Oxford, who has been working in a very collaborative way, because he understood that this isn’t a political issue. This is an issue where everybody in the community needs to come together. In fact, the three school boards, the community agencies—everybody in the community is working together to support the children.

It may interest you to know that we continue to work with all boards to equip educators with the tools and knowledge that they need to address mental health. In fact, all the school boards have mental health leaders now. The mental health leader in each of the three boards affected is working—

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

New question.

Softwood lumber

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The forestry sector is extremely important for our province’s economy. Forestry generates $13 billion of economic activity, while providing 150,000 jobs in 260 communities. Trade with the United States is significant to the sector, generating exports valued at close to $5 billion and accounting for as much as 95% of Ontario’s forestry and wood product manufacturing exports.

In October 2015, the almost-decade-long softwood lumber agreements between the United States and Canada expired. A one-year standstill period of free trade will come to an end this October 2016. Any future softwood lumber trade agreements between Canada and the United States will have a significant impact on Ontario’s forestry sector.

Can the minister update us on the status of the softwood lumber agreement between Ontario and the United States, and Ontario’s position on the negotiations?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question.

As he mentioned in his question, the existing deal did expire in October 2015. We’re now in a standstill period. There was a hope, of course—a very publicly expressed hope—that within 100 days we would have an agreement. We still do not have that agreement, but discussions are ongoing. Minister Freeland and GAC Canada are doing their best to represent Canada’s national interest on this very important issue, especially, I would say, not only for Ontario, but a little more specifically for northern Ontario.

In turn, our ministry is doing everything that we can to represent Ontario’s interests on this. It’s of great concern to us. As I’ve mentioned, northern Ontario is very reliant on a very robust and excitable forestry industry, when it comes to softwood lumber specifically.

The industry is rebounding, Speaker. We manage our resources in this province in a very sustainable manner, and we’re doing our best to represent the industry on this file to Minister Freeland as she works on behalf of the national interest.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for that update on the status of the agreement. It is indeed a very important issue for our country. Every time it gets on the news it receives a lot of attention.

This is a particularly important issue for Ontario and I’m very happy to see the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is engaged with it. I understand the federal government has been active on this complex issue and I’m glad to hear that the negotiations may move quickly.

Can the minister tell the members of this House how his ministry is working with industry, other levels of government and other stakeholders to ensure continued access to important US markets for our softwood lumber products?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, I thank the member for the question. There are a couple of nuances with Ontario’s position that we have expressed to Minister Freeland and that we’re hoping she’s able to carry forward when it comes to this national discussion.

Ontario is a relatively small player when it comes to softwood lumber exports, in terms of the total that we have of the national export into the American market. It’s important to note, as I’ve expressed to her, that in Ontario, 95% of our exports go into the American market. So any change to our proportion of share into the American market nationally, if it’s reduced, could have a disproportionate effect on Ontario relative to the other players in the softwood lumber export market.

Other players in Canada have access to other markets. Ontario is pretty much landlocked when it comes to this. Most of our exports go into the US. It’s important. As best I’m able, I’m reminding the federal government of this particular nuance when it comes to Ontario’s position. Hopefully any reduction in the national total would not necessarily be reflected—

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

New question.

Bear hunting

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Northern Ontario was celebrating the return of the spring bear hunt that was scheduled to start on May 1—that is, until the MNR dropped the ball and botched the hunt. On the eve of the hunt, they restricted the number of form 33s that went to outfitters. Form 33s are non-resident hunter permits that go to recreational tourists from the United States and around the world who come to northern Ontario for the hunt. Some outfitters actually had their numbers cut in half. That’s costing them tens of thousands of dollars.

Now, I know when these tourists come they spend tens of thousands of dollars in northern Ontario. This was a big economic development and was celebrated in northern Ontario.

Speaker, the minister has promised the residents of northern Ontario that he’s going to fix the problem, but will he fix it in time for the fall bear hunt? What kind of promises will the minister make to those outfitters in northern Ontario who are expecting some action from his government on this issue?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. I would at this time as well thank the opposition parties for their support when we introduced the five-year pilot on the spring bear hunt. I also want to thank the 84 northern municipalities across Ontario that came forward with very public declarations of their support on this.

I would say that there are a number of outfitters who have not been satisfied with the number of form 33s that they have received. But I would also say that a great number of them have landed in a place that they’re very satisfied with, and the economic benefit—that was not the reason for the re-introduction of the hunt—will accrue back to them. There are some—a smaller number, I would say—that are not satisfied.

We’ve committed, as the 2015 data comes into the ministry, that we’ll do our best to ensure, as best we are able, that they are made whole, as they see it, for the fall hunt as well, and that by the beginning of the second year of the pilot next year we will have landed this in a much better place for everyone.

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

Deferred Votes

Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des élections municipales

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

Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, June 6, 2016, Mr. McMeekin moved third reading of Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts.

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

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 69; the nays are 23.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

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

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

Bill 156,

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

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

The division bells rang from 1149 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On April 14, 2016, Mr. Orazietti moved second reading of Bill 156,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to financial services.

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

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 69; the nays are 23.

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Minister.

Hon. David Orazietti: I ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): So ordered.

Correction of record

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Point of order, Speaker: I’d like to correct my record. In my supplementary question, I commented about making life more “affordable.” Clearly, I meant “unaffordable.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members have the right to correct their record. Thank you very much. That’s a point of order.

There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1153 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Today we’ll be discussing Rowan’s Law. I have a number of people here from Ottawa, including Gordon and Kathleen Stringer and many from the Barrhaven Scottish rugby club and many other organizations. I’ll introduce them more properly as I speak, but I wanted to say a very hearty welcome to them to the assembly today.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Dr. Bob Phillips, Trina Moyan, Shannon Neufeldt, Shadrak Gobert, Diane Meredith and Reg McQuaid here, connected with Kairos.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. Glad you’re with us.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce two people, my executive assistants: first, my outgoing executive assistant, Clint Thomas, who has been with me for quite a while, and my incoming executive assistant, Rahul Bedi.

Wearing of jerseys

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m seeking unanimous consent in order that myself and other members of the Barrhaven Scottish rugby club can wear our jerseys during the debate on Rowan’s Law.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is seeking unanimous consent to wear rugby jerseys during the discussion. Do we agree? Agreed.

Disclosure of information

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is presenting a point of privilege.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to present a point of privilege. In accordance with standing order 21(c), I wrote to you providing the appropriate notice in bringing this matter to your attention at my first available opportunity.

My contention is that there has been a premature disclosure of documents in relation to Ontario’s climate change action plan that members in this House should have had access to before the media.

This morning, on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, I read in the online version of the Toronto Star an

article titled, “Revealed: Ontario’s ‘Climate Change Action Plan,’” written by Robert Benzie. The

article states that there are “28 key measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ‘Ontario’s Five Year Climate Action Plan 2016-2020’” and that the “85-page plan” is “to be introduced Wednesday in Toronto.” This is not a case of journalistic speculation; the

article goes into detail that would only be possible if the author had received a copy of the action plan.

In that case, I would point out that subsection 7(6) of Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016, states: “The minister shall, before January 1, 2017, lay the action plan before the assembly and make it available to the public on a website of the government or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.” It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the action plan should have been provided to members of the House before the media, as enshrined in the legislation passed in this current parliamentary session.

There is significant precedent that has found prima facie breaches in regard to documents being given to the media before members of the Legislature. On March 15, 2001, Speaker Milliken ruled on a question of privilege regarding an incident where the media was briefed on a justice bill, Bill C-15, before members of Parliament. The Speaker indicated that there were two important issues in that case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members’ access to information required to fulfill their duties.

In his ruling, the Speaker said: “In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before Parliament, the House must take precedence.... The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

To deny ... information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.”

While in this instance there was not an embargoed briefing for all media, I would contest that it is similar to giving a copy of the action plan to an individual member of the press gallery.

Furthermore, on October 4, 2010, Speaker Milliken noted, “It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.” While the climate change action plan is not legislation in the same sense that the rulings regarding bills C-14 and C-15 were, it’s one of the most significant changes this government has undertaken. It was enshrined in legislation that the plan was to be tabled in the House. I see no difference in the tabling of this action plan than as if legislation were forthcoming.

Furthermore, it will lead to wide-sweeping changes, future legislation and significant debate in the Legislature and during oral questions.

Most recently, I would point to the precedent set by Speaker Regan on April 19, 2016. When ruling on the issue of a premature disclosure of documents, he said, “Due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.”

Joseph Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada is very quick to establish what we understand—or at least what the authorities have told us—represents contempt in the Canadian parliamentary tradition. On page 235 of the second edition of Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it reads, “Contempt is more aptly described as an offence against the authority and the dignity of the House.”

This House rightfully deserved to have the climate change action plan laid before it, and the members should not have had to read the details of the plan in the Toronto Star. That’s my submission, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay on the same point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On the same point of order, in regard to the contempt and privilege points that my colleague has raised—I don’t want to be long, but I just want to make the following point. The government, by way of its own actions, introduced Bill 172, which was voted on in this House. In that particular bill, the government sets out a number of requirements that need to be followed by way of law, and one of those is under

section 5 of the bill. It says, “The minister shall, before January 1, 2017, lay the action plan before the assembly and make it available to the public on a website of the government or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.” As far as I know, at this point there are no regulations, so I guess we’ll have to rely on that particular

section of the bill.

The point is, if you read that—and I think what most members understood, when we voted on this particular bill, is that the government, in regard to its climate change plan, would table it in the House and they would post it on a website. That, I think, is what most members understood. I think that’s what all members understood when it came to what it is that we’re going to do.

Instead, as the member pointed out—I’m not going to belittle the point—they woke up to find out that, in fact, parts of the plan, in quite a bit of detail, were released to the media. That’s contrary to what the government themselves declared that they wanted in the act, which all of these members then voted for. And the bill did pass in this House.

I’m not going to get into reading everything that’s in Beauchesne, O’Brien and Bosc and all that, because I’d be here way too long, but I do want to make the following point. As you know, Speaker, not all issues of contempt are a breach of privilege, but I think there is an argument to be made on contempt here, because if you look at what we say when it comes to contempt, we say, “The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.” And it goes on into some details.

The relevant part, I think—and I just want to end on this—is, if you look at page 83, one of the bullet points, five from the bottom, says that contempt can be described as “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee.”

In this case, documents were suppressed. They were given to the media before they were actually tabled in this House. Therefore, I would support what the member, in fact, rises on in regard to the issue of contempt, and ask you to look at this in the light of what the government intended to do with

section 5 of the bill and what they did as far as an action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader on the same point.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you for acknowledging me. I do rise to respond to the point of privilege presented by the member from Simcoe–Grey regarding an

article published by the Toronto Star this morning concerning the government’s climate change action plan.

From the outset, I respectfully submit that the facts presented by the member from Simcoe–Grey do not warrant a prima facie finding of contempt. Speaker Peters of the this House, in 2010, cited Joseph Maingot in the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which states, “There must be some act that improperly interferes with the member’s rights.... The interference, however, must not only obstruct the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his parliamentary work.”

The question before the House, therefore, is whether members have an entitlement to the action plan in advance of, and to the exclusion of, others, and if so, whether the rights of members were obstructed such that they were unable to conduct their parliamentary work. I submit that the answer to both of these questions is no.

In making this case, the member for Simcoe–Grey has cited subsection 7(6) of

An Act respecting greenhouse gas, 2016. It states—and I quote, as has been done by other members: “The minister shall, before January 1, 2017, lay the action plan before the assembly and make it available to the public on a website of the government or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.”

A determination of whether information printed in the Toronto Star is contempt, in this case, requires a conclusion that, in statute, the assembly is to be the sole or first recipient of the plan. This would require an

interpretation of the act, an exercise in which this House cannot engage, as you know, Speaker, and as also noted in the 2010 ruling of Speaker Peters and the 1997 ruling of Speaker Stockwell, who adopted the 1989 ruling of Speaker Fraser of the Canadian House of Commons.

Nonetheless, should the House elect to interpret the act, it is my submission that it is not, as submitted by the member for Simcoe–Grey, “clear that this action plan should have been provided to the members of the House before the media, as enshrined in the legislation.”

First, the action plan is not legislation. It is part of a regulatory scheme duly undertaken by the government of Ontario. The member is conflating bills and the inherent precedence of the assembly in being the first to see legislation with a plan. While the member is correct that such a plan may lead to significant changes in future legislation, its possible future impact does not make it legislation yet to be tabled. In that sense, Speaker, the plan puts no imposition on members’ parliamentary duties, and therefore a media report about it cannot be said to obstruct the members from doing their jobs.

While the member for Simcoe–Grey has cited strong authority for the priority of honourable members to be the first recipients of legislation, I respectfully submit that the action plan is not legislation and is, therefore, not caught under the precedents of parliamentary law and convention.

In particular, I note that, in the April 2016 ruling by Speaker Regan, he referred to the “pre-eminent role” of legislative information. In this case, Speaker, like the cases of contempt surrounding the sharing of Bill C-15 in 2001 and Bill C-14 in 2010, both rulings of Commons Speaker Milliken, the Speaker was dealing with the premature disclosure of then yet-to-be-tabled assisted dying legislation. I quote Speaker Regan here:

“As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

“On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:

“‘It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.’”

Therefore, Speaker, it is the text of bills that is the “legislative information” to which Speaker Regan referred in his ruling.

The climate change action plan is not legislative information but a legislated obligation on the minister. That distinction is imperative and substantiates that there be no prima facie finding of contempt.

Furthermore, the legislation is clear about strictly the following with respect to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: (1) the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is obliged to lay the action plan before the assembly; and (2) they shall do so before January 1, 2017. It is important to note that this is the deadline by which the minister must formally submit to the assembly the action plan. The minister may do so before January 1, 2017. This is also the deadline by which the minister must make the action plan public.

The provision requiring tabling of the action plan in the House and posting it online is a matter of transparency and accountability, which are foundational pillars of any government.

There can be no assumption as to the priority of this House in receiving this plan before the public, especially since the legislation is clear that the deadline is the same for both the assembly and the general public to receive the information.

Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the assembly must be the first recipient of the plan. It would be inappropriate for the House to assert a privilege of precedence in receiving documents without any clear intention.

I note that this House has, from time to time, enshrined certain rights in legislation to the exclusion of other entities. Enabling legislations of independent officers require reports to be submitted to you, Speaker, and laid before the assembly and to no other entity.

I contrast the action plan to reports of an independent officer, such as the Auditor General, whose reports and public accounts must be submitted only to the assembly of the Speaker—under subsection 108(

h) are deemed to be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the committee for its observations, opinions and recommendations.

Speaker, there is simply no case to be made that the alleged contents of the climate change action plan appearing in a newspaper is the same as legislation and legislative information reported on by the media.

The plan is not a bill. It imposes no duties or obligations on our honourable members above those of Ontarians generally, nor does it go to any standing duties or privileges they duly hold.

Speaker, in conclusion, I seek the opportunity to make my submissions in writing, in the furtherance of your deliberations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey on the same order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Just a short point in rebuttal: Because of the politics around the issue at the time, I didn’t put it in my letter to you today, Speaker, or my oral submission in the House today, but I would remind people that the so-called Magna budget—it was a budget. It was a speech. It contained policy changes of the government not nearly as significant as the climate change action plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Jim Wilson: While some would argue the other way, I’ll finish my submission.

To the honourable House leader’s point that it’s not legislation we’re talking about today: We weren’t talking about legislation back then either. We were talking about a budget speech that we were scolded about. I don’t have the quotes in front of me, but Speaker Carr had some pretty powerful language around that point of privilege, and I’d ask you to look at that material, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Timmins–James Bay, in a small return.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Very, very small. I’d just remind the government House leader: I appreciate his argument, but to argue that the climate change plan is not legislation is really not giving this—the reality is, Bill 172 sets out that the climate change plan needs to be tabled in this House. The climate change plan is what gives life to Bill 172 when it comes to what’s affected—the public will be affected by what’s inside that climate change plan, and it will be enacted by way of the law. So the climate change plan and Bill 172 are very connected. It is a bill, it is a law, and it is something that will affect the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all members who stayed inside of the process for point of privilege, and I appreciate the fact that everyone did stay on that.

I would also like to thank the member from Simcoe–Grey, the member from Timmins–James Bay and the government House leader for their submissions. I take under consideration that written submission is going to be provided. I would request that to be happening as quickly as possible.

I also now will reserve my judgment on this particular point and will return to the House with my decision as soon as possible.

Members’ Statements

St. John Ambulance

Ms. Laurie Scott: With over 30 branches across the province, from Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, Ottawa, Niagara Falls, Kingston, Barrie, Toronto and many more, St. John Ambulance is present in our communities.

Established in Canada in 1883, the first ambulance division was soon formed in London. Since then, St. John Ambulance members have dedicated countless hours to fulfill their mission of enabling Canadians with improved health, safety and quality of life.

In fact, last year alone, St. John Ambulance members contributed over 600,000 community service hours in Ontario. Whether for campus teams, youth programs, concerts, festivals or at the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games, volunteer medical first responders have provided first aid training and emergency response support at 4,400 public events—truly invaluable.

Through their therapy dog program, they help bring comfort to many in times of need. These four-legged, furry friends have helped brighten the days of many university students, hospital patients and seniors.

In commemoration of the national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, several groups were honoured for their dedication to helping victims of crime. I would like to commend the support dog program for giving victims of child abuse and sexual assault the option of having a highly trained comfort dog.

Thank you for your dedication and commitment to our province.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I rise today to speak to a vital issue for me, for the people of my riding, London–Fanshawe, and especially for smaller communities like Woodstock in Oxford county, who are challenged by the lack of proper mental health supports in this province.

For years, we’ve been telling this government that London and surrounding communities are facing serious shortages in mental health supports and services. In my riding alone, mental health patients are sleeping on emergency room floors, and facing shuttered facilities, over-capacity clinics and group home deaths.

Last year, I introduced Bill 95, Improving Mental Health and Addictions Services in Ontario Act, 2015, as a means of implementing the extraordinary work accomplished by the all-party Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Their final report heard from more than 300 groups and individuals from across the province, all calling for greater supports for mental health and addictions programming. Yet this government has let my bill languish in committee while it continues down a path of its own at the expense of people suffering from mental illness, including our children, who took to the streets to demand you listen and provide the supports they need.

Speaker, we can’t help but ask what mental health services and supports in Ontario would look like today if this government hadn’t blown billions of tax dollars on scandals like Ornge, eHealth and gas plants.

Too many Ontarians are living without proper mental health supports. Now is the time to deliver. Not one more death is acceptable.

Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Mr. Speaker, 2016 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Canada’s first member of Parliament of Polish heritage, Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski.

Raised in a patriotic family, Kierzkowski was forced to emigrate from Poland after fighting in the 1830 uprising against Russian rule. Arriving in Canada in 1841, he continued his military career, honourably serving as lieutenant colonel of the Richelieu district and then commander of the 2nd militia battalion of Saint-Hyacinthe.

Kierzkowski was elected in 1867 to our nation’s very first Parliament as a Liberal MP. He was an extraordinary individual who helped to build the very foundations of our country.

Next year, as Canadians celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Polish Canadians will be observing the 150th anniversary of the election of Kierzkowski.

Speaker, the legacy of Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski shows that Polish Canadians have significantly contributed in building our great multicultural nation since Confederation.

As a Polish Canadian myself, I am especially proud of this legacy that continues today. Later this evening, we will celebrate the work and legacy of Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski with a special exhibition on his life.

I want to thank the Canadian Polish Congress, Toronto district, and the Polish Canadian Business and Professional Association of Windsor for organizing this special reception and exhibition, and I invite all to join us at 6 p.m.

Dziękuję. Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I, too, rise today to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Alexandre Ėdouard Kierzkowski, the first Canadian parliamentarian of Polish heritage. He was first elected to the House of Commons in the first Parliament at the birth of the Dominion of Canada in 1867. He was a Polish patriot, a civil engineer, a military man and an advocate of a new land credit system.

Kierzkowski was born in 1816 in the duchy region of what was then Prussia, a partitioned territory of today’s Republic of Poland. He came from an accomplished military family. He served has an officer of the Polish army and participated in the November Uprising, also known as the Polish-Russian War in 1830-31. Following a defeat, he was forced to flee.

In 1842, he emigrated to the United Province of Canada and worked for the department of public works as a civil engineer. He championed land banks to improve agricultural practice and pressed for reforms in the mortgage system. He also served as a justice of the peace and a lieutenant colonel of the Richelieu district militia.

On July 1, 1867, Canada become a dominion of four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, through Confederation. Later that year, he was elected to a newly formed House of Commons as a member representing the Saint-Hyacinthe riding. He played an important role in politics for Canadians, Polonia and Poland.

Polish Canadians such as Kierzkowski and many others have made significant contributions to the cultural, educational, political and economic fabric of Canada and Ontario.

Being of Polish heritage myself, I am proud to celebrate his legacy, and I am looking forward to tonight joining members of this Legislature and members of Polonia at a reception honouring the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Aboriginal education

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think most of us will know that education on reserves across Ontario leaves a lot to be desired. Our federal government—surprise, surprise—is not in the business of education, and as a result, all of our schools on-reserve are run independently as local education authorities and are funded at about half of what students get in any other community across this province. So we wonder: Why do we get the outcomes that we get out of those schools? Because, quite frankly, the federal government does not support those schools in the same way the province supports schools in communities across Ontario.

That’s why I’ve been consulting for over a year now, along with our caucus, with First Nations to bring a bill forward that would allow First Nations, if they choose, to opt into the provincial school system so that they can have an effect when it comes to education by getting the expertise that the province provides and the level of funding needed that other kids get to make sure that those kids are able to compete on a level playing field.

I am looking forward tomorrow to bringing that bill forward. I know there’s going to be some contention with that because many First Nations are worried about treaty rights and say, “Will this affect my treaty rights?” I’m pleased to say that as a result of the consultation I did last summer, I’ve put an amendment to the bill that gives a non-derogation clause that ensures that First Nations’ treaty rights are not in any way affected.

I look forward to those consultations and for the debate later on this fall where we’ll have an opportunity to do something when it comes to really doing reconciliation in this province and providing kids on-reserve with an education that is equal to all other children in this province.

Refugees

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: This past Saturday, I laced up my skates, carried a Canadian flag and joined in welcoming some of the newest members of my community of Cambridge at the World Refugee Day skating party.

Since 2013, June has become a Waterloo region community-wide celebration for refugees, with events held by numerous organizations to recognize World Refugee Day. The skating party at Cambridge Centre mall was a way to celebrate and welcome our new community members from Syria and beyond.

Skaters from the Preston skating club volunteered to help as they encouraged the first-time skaters, children and adults, as they hit the ice for the first time. Many timidly held onto the boards for the first laps but were enjoying skating without help before too long. Hot chocolate, Timbits and much laughter concluded a very enjoyable event in what was truly a new Canadian experience for our new neighbours.

I want to thank Sandra Sydor from Idea Exchange; Alam Mohammed from the Islamic School of Cambridge; YMCA of Cambridge; Cambridge Ice Centre; the United Way; the Preston skating club; Champions Training Centre; and Tim Hortons, all of whom partnered to put on this fantastic event.

My region of Waterloo has a proud history of welcoming refugees and has provided both a safe haven and a fresh start. Families from all parts of the world have made this community their home, and I am very proud that so many in my community have done so much to help them feel truly at home.

Clint Thomas

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to use this time to say thanks and farewell to a great friend of mine. Clint Thomas has been my executive assistant here at Queen’s Park since first being elected in 2011. We met when Clint was news director at Rogers Radio in North Bay. He commanded attention as a respected and authoritative voice. He did his research and was the voice that our community turned to, to understand the important issues. Clint hosted the Mayor’s Phone In show, which is where we really got to know each other, when serving as mayor of the city of North Bay.

He then took his talent to Toronto, where he worked at CP, continuing to hone his many skills. That led him to Queen’s Park, where he and I built a real and lasting friendship. Here, he certainly rose to the many challenges, becoming a subject-matter expert on energy and then Ontario’s finances.

But more than just business, we have been friends. Patty and I watched as his newborn sons, Asa and Colton, grew into wonderful young boys. Clint and I golfed together, and he has never, ever, let me win. We spent hours driving together, chatting. With Clint, it was always about his beloved sports; for me, not so much.

As Clint moves on, Patty and I wish him all the best. We look forward to the next

chapter in his life. Thank you, Clint.

Portugal Day

Mrs. Cristina Martins: As a proud Portuguese Canadian, I am honoured to rise today to speak about Portugal Day, or, as it is known throughout the Portuguese diaspora, Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas.

Portugal Day is celebrated worldwide on June 10, and let me tell you, the celebrations and festivities are in full gear this month throughout Ontario, and in particular in my riding of Davenport, which is home to the largest Portuguese community in Ontario.

The first Portugal Day commemorations in Toronto were organized in 1966. Since then, for the last 50 years-plus, we’ve been celebrating Portuguese heritage and the community’s accomplishments. It is a yearly reminder of the distinguished contributions that Portuguese Canadians have made and continue to make to the social, cultural and economic fabric of our province.

Portuguese Canadians help to create a more vibrant, dynamic and cosmopolitan society—a society that draws strength from the celebration of our different heritages and embraces our common hopes for a better and more prosperous future.

Many Portuguese immigrants came to Canada to seek a better life and, in the process, have made life better for all Canadians. The Portuguese community in Ontario is one of our great success stories as a nation.

I am proud to celebrate the rich history of Luso Canadians in Ontario. I encourage all members of this House to attend the Portugal flag-raising ceremony tomorrow, which will take place at 3 p.m. on the south lawn of Queen’s Park.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone about the annual Portugal Day parade, considered the largest Portugal Day parade outside of Portugal and is in its 29th year, organized annually by the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations.

Obrigado, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same to you.

Walk a Mile in Her Shoes

Mr. Granville Anderson: Last Saturday, I was pleased to attend the annual Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event in Bowmanville. This event is especially important because I believe we need to get the message across that violence will not be tolerated in our community or in any community. To prove that point, we are willing to walk a mile in her shoes. Well, by a mile, Speaker, I mean as far as my body would let me in red high heels, but you get the point.

I am proud to support this event as it increases community awareness about issues such as sexual and gender violence. This event also helps to raise funds to support the cost of services provided in the Bethesda House, which is a shelter for abused women and their children in Durham riding.

I will take this moment to thank all of the volunteers who not only work tirelessly to keep this organization going strong but also for their ongoing advocacy on this issue. Not only does this event open up dialogue about sexual assault and gender violence, especially among the men participating in this event; it also allows the community to unite and continue to work together to fight this very important issue.

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

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received a report on intended appointments dated June 7, 2016, from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 108(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I beg leave to present a report on Metrolinx—Regional Transportation Planning (Section 4.08, 2014 Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Hardeman presents the committee’s report and moves the adoption of its recommendations.

Does the member wish to make a short statement?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am pleased to table the committee’s report entitled Metrolinx—Regional Transportation Planning (Section 4.8, 2014 Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario).

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the permanent membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Lisa MacLeod, Vice-Chair; Chris Ballard; John Fraser; Percy Hatfield; Harinder Malhi; Peter Milczyn; Julia Munro; and Lou Rinaldi.

The committee extends its appreciation to officials from the Ministry of Transportation and from Metrolinx for their attendance at the hearings.

The committee also acknowledges the assistance provided during the hearings, report writing and deliberations by the Office of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Committee and staff in legislative research.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I beg leave to present a report on ServiceOntario (Section 4.09, 2015 Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Hardeman presents the committee’s report and moves the adoption of the recommendations.

Does the member wish to make a short statement?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am pleased to table the committee’s report today, entitled ServiceOntario (Section 4.09, 2015 Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario).

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the permanent membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Lisa MacLeod, Vice-Chair; Chris Ballard; John Fraser; Percy Hatfield; Harinder Malhi; Peter Milczyn; Julia Munro; and Lou Rinaldi.

The committee extends its appreciation to officials from the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services for their attendance at the hearings.

The committee also acknowledges the assistance provided during the hearings, report writing and deliberations by the Office of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Committee and staff in legislative research.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Debate adjourned.

Standing Committee on Justice Policy / Comité permanent de la justice

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Je demande la permission de déposer un rapport du Comité permanent de la justice, et je propose son adoption. I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

I send it to you via page Nava.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 149,

An Act to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations on the jury recommendations made in the inquest into the death of Rowan Stringer / Projet de loi 149, Loi créant un comité consultatif chargé d’examiner les recommandations formulées par le jury à la suite de l’enquête sur le décès de Rowan Stringer.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, without amendment:

Bill 180,

An Act to proclaim a Workers Day of Mourning / Projet de loi 180, Loi proclamant un Jour de deuil pour les travailleurs.

Bill 182,

An Act to proclaim Ontario Down Syndrome Day / Projet de loi 182, Loi proclamant la Journée ontarienne de la trisomie 21.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Carried.

Report adopted.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, May 30, 2016, the bills are ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Trailers), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (remorques)

Mr. Norm Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 212,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to trailers / Projet de loi 212, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les remorques.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Currently,

section 85 of the Highway Traffic Act requires vehicles to display evidence of compliance with certain inspection requirements and performance standards of the vehicles, as prescribed by regulation. Regulation 611, Safety Inspections, of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990, makes the requirement in

section 85 of the act applicable to a commercial motor vehicle if the combined gross weight of the vehicle and any trailer it draws exceeds 4,500 kilograms and to certain types of recreational vehicles, motorhomes and house trailers. The bill amends the act to provide that compliance is not required for trailers with a gross weight, not including the motor vehicle, of 4,500 kilograms or less.

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Careless Driving), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (conduite imprudente)

Ms. McMahon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 213,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to careless driving causing death or bodily harm / Projet de loi 213, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne la conduite imprudente causant la mort ou des blessures corporelles.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: This amends the Highway Traffic Act to increase the penalties for careless driving causing death or bodily harm. The limitation period in respect of careless driving causing death or bodily harm is increased to two years.

Motions

Private members’ public business

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business.

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

Deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 98(b), the following changes be made to the ballot list: Mr. Kwinter and Mr. Ballard exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Kwinter assumes ballot item number 53 and Mr. Ballard assumes ballot item number 50.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley orders that, notwithstanding standing order—

Interjection: Dispense.

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

Agreed? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of Bill 201

Hon. James J. Bradley: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the Standing Committee on General Government’s consideration of Bill 201.

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

Deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated Tuesday, May 31, 2016, the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to

schedule a witness chosen by the official opposition House leader and a witness chosen by the third party House leader at any time within the authorized meeting times of the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley moves that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated Tuesday—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —May 31, 2016, the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to

schedule a witness chosen by the official opposition House leader and a witness chosen by the third party House leader at any time within the authorized meeting times of the committee. Do we agree? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

The ayes have it. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Committee membership

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding changes to the membership of certain standing committees.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I don’t have that one. I didn’t hear it; sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will offer the deputy House leader an opportunity to repeat, as it has not been heard.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding changes to the membership of certain standing committees.

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

Deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

That on the Standing Committee on Estimates, Ms. Taylor replaces Mr. Mantha; and

That on the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Mr. Mantha replaces Ms. Taylor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley moves that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

That on the Standing Committee on Estimates, Ms. Taylor replaces Mr. Mantha; and

That on the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Mr. Mantha replaces Ms. Taylor.

Do we agree? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Stray current

Mr. Rick Nicholls: “Whereas stray current has adverse effects on animal and human health;

“Whereas the livelihoods of many Ontario livestock farmers including dairy farmers have been jeopardized or completely lost due to stray current issues;

“Whereas the Ontario government should regulate the occurrence of stray current with legislation in order to ensure that all parties involved or affected have a clear process set out to eliminate stray current;

“Whereas the issues of stray current can be addressed through changes in both the policy and practice of the provincially regulated electrical distribution and electrical service industries;

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

“For the government of Ontario to fully commit to addressing the issues of stray current by promptly calling Bill 161 ... to committee and having the bill proceed promptly to debate at third reading, and then on to receiving royal assent.”

I approve of this petition. I will affix my name and give it to page Julia.

Curriculum

M me France Gélinas: I have over 9,000 names collected by Kairos for this petition, which has been certified by the Clerk. It reads as follows:

“Whereas for six years the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) listened to thousands of former students of residential schools and their families testify to the devastating legacy of this national policy of assimilation;

“Whereas the TRC calls upon ‘the federal, provincial and territorial governments, in consultation and collaboration with survivors, aboriginal peoples and educators, to make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, treaties and aboriginal peoples’ historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for kindergarten to grade 12 students’ (CA 62.1); and

“Whereas on July 15, 2015, Canada’s Premiers indicated their support for all 94 Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action and said they would act on them in their own provinces and territories;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario urge the government of Ontario to fully implement such a curriculum for kindergarten through grade 12.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Waleed to bring it to the Clerk. Thanks again to the people who brought it.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

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

« Étant donné que le ministère de l’Éducation reconnaît que tous les citoyens sont gagnants lorsque les écoles sont utilisées de manière optimale et qu’à ce jour, il n’a pas amélioré la situation des écoles sous-utilisées;

« Étant donné que les conseils propriétaires ne mettent pas d’école ou de terrain en disponibilité dans “le quartier,” que le conseil catholique construit une école à Scarborough mais trop loin pour les familles concernées;

« Nous, soussignés, demandons à l’Assemblée législative :

« Que la ministre de l’Éducation intervienne pour rendre disponible une école de qualité dans les circonscriptions Toronto–Danforth ou Beaches–East York qui, en septembre 2016, accueillera nos enfants, accordant ainsi à nos enfants le même droit qu’aux enfants anglophones. »

I agree with this petition, sign my name to it and send it down with page Katelyn.

Natural gas

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas currently 76% of homes in Ontario use natural gas for heat; and

“Whereas natural gas is a clean, reliable and affordable fuel source and its price has been steadily in decline for several years; and

“Whereas under Kathleen Wynne’s new plan, all homes and buildings built after 2030 will be barred from using natural gas; and

“Whereas making the switch from natural gas to electric heat will cost an average of $3,000 extra per year and homeowners will be faced with at least $4,500” to $15,000 “in renovation costs; and

“Whereas the government’s misguided energy policies have already resulted in unaffordable business and residential energy rates that are forcing jobs out of the province; and

“Whereas the Minister of Energy is on the record recommending Ontarians switch to natural gas to escape exorbitant hydro bills;

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

“To immediately reconsider the plan to ban natural gas heat from Ontario buildings and new construction.”

I agree with this and will be passing it on to the page.

Environmental protection

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have 1,100 names. The first one on the list is that of David Suzuki. I’ll shorten the petition down in half.

“Whereas the Ojibway Prairie Complex is a five-park system totalling 332 hectares. It represents half of the city of Windsor’s remaining natural areas;

“Whereas Ojibway has 160 species at risk”—20% of Ontario’s species at risk and 32% of Canada’s. “It represents Canada’s, and the world’s, most endangered ecosystem;....

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

“To designate this land with provincial importance and prevent any development on or adjacent to this land, so that the land will be protected and so too will the 91 species at risk, including six endangered and 12 threatened species on

schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Act.”

I agree. I’ll sign my name and give it to Nava.

Government anti-racism programs

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

“Whereas Ontarians are concerned that individual, systemic and cultural racism continues to create unfair outcomes for racial minorities in Ontario;

“Whereas the time has come to remove the social and economic barriers that prevent our province from achieving true equality;

“Whereas in order to accomplish that objective and to tackle racism in all its forms, our government has created the new Anti-Racism Directorate;

“We, the undersigned, acknowledge both our support for the concept behind the Anti-Racism Directorate, and recognize that there is still work to be done to build an inclusive Ontario where everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or cultural background, has an equal opportunity to succeed.

“Therefore, we petition the government to work with key partners, such as businesses, community organizations, educational institutions and the Ontario Human Rights Commission in an effort to create a scope for the Anti-Racism Directorate.

“This petition encourages the directorate to consider initiatives that would increase public education and awareness of racism, and to consider various methods by which a wide anti-racism lens can be applied during the development, implementation and evaluation of government policies, programs and services.”

I agree with this petition. I’ll sign my name to it and I will give it to page Daniel.

Hospital funding

Mr. Robert Bailey: This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says, “Nurses Know—Petition for Better Care.” In the interest of brevity, I’m going to skip part of it.

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

“Implement a moratorium on RN cuts;

“Commit to restoring hospital base operating funding to at least cover the costs of inflation and population growth;

“Create a fully-funded multi-year health human resources plan to bring Ontario’s ratio of registered nurses to population up to the national average;

“Ensure hospitals have enough resources to continue providing safe, quality and integrated care for clinical procedures and stop plans for moving such procedures into private, unaccountable clinics.”

I agree with this petition, Mr. Speaker. I will affix my signature.

Privatisation des biens publics

M me France Gélinas: J’ai des pétitions qui me viennent de partout dans le nord de l’Ontario. J’aimerais remercier M. Gilbert Prevost.

« Attendu que la privatisation d’Hydro O