Ontario Hansard — 8 June 2016 (41st Parliament, 1st Session)

2016-06-08

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

June 8, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Jun-08 (PDF)

L184 - Wed 8 Jun 2016 / Mer 8 jun 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 June 2016 Mercredi 8 juin 2016

Members’ expenditures

Orders of the Day

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée

Special report, Auditor General

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Visitors

Clifford Pilkey

Oral Questions

Energy policies

School facilities

Mercury poisoning

Hospital funding

Pan Am Games

Climate change

Mining industry

Special-needs students

Pan Am Games

Sexual violence and harassment

Transportation infrastructure

Education funding

Seniors

Anti-Semitism

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Impact! Youth Summit

Commemoration of fallen soldiers

Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction

Events in Huron–Bruce

Brampton kabaddi tournament

Ontario Volunteer Service Awards / Distinctions de l’Ontario pour services bénévoles

Environmental protection

St. John Chrysostom Catholic Church

Bike Month

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Education Amendment Act (Regional Aboriginal School Boards), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation (conseils scolaires autochtones régionaux)

Hazel McCallion Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de Hazel McCallion

Greater Access to Hepatitis C Treatment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’élargissement de l’accès au traitement de l’hépatite C

Service Dogs for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les chiens d’assistance pour les personnes handicapées

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Motions

House sittings

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Local Food Week / Semaine des aliments locaux

Petitions

Autism treatment

Post-secondary sector employees

Speed limits

Health care funding

Services for the developmentally disabled

Blood donation

Health care funding

Health care

Climate change

Health care funding

Dental care

Housing Services Corp.

Privatization of public assets

Order of business

Orders of the Day

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine de la reconnaissance du personnel des services correctionnels

Workers Day of Mourning Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de deuil pour les travailleurs

Order of business

Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Act, 2016

Stephanie Holdings Ltd. Act, 2016

Bill Bedford Professional Corporation Act, 2016

1709542 Ontario Corporation Act, 2016

839255 Ontario Inc. Act, 2016

Base2 eBusiness Solutions Inc. Act, 2016

Corporation of Massey Hall and Roy Thomson Hall Act (Tax Relief), 2016

828117 Ontario Limited Act, 2016

Bud Monahan Guitar Sales & Service Ltd. Act, 2016

790186 Ontario Inc. Act, 2016

Ismaili Centre, Toronto, Aga Khan Museum and Aga Khan Park Act (Tax Relief), 2016

1733387 Ontario Corp. Act, 2016

Boys and Girls Club of Niagara Act (Tax Relief), 2016

Harold Coles Inc. Act, 2016

Adjournment Debate

Infectious disease control

Hospital funding

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Members’ expenditures

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 2015-16. Members will find copies in their desks.

Orders of the Day

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée

Mr. Fraser, on behalf of Ms. Damerla, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Halton.

I am once again proud to rise in support of the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, and I’d like to thank the associate minister for the opportunity to do so. I believe strongly that this is a piece of legislation that is worthy of support by all members of this House.

The issue presented by the legislation we are considering today is very straightforward: Do we want smoking laws to be fair, consistent and that accomplish what they are in place to do, which is to protect Ontarians? If we do, then how can we not support the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016? Madam Speaker, let me explain.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act was a groundbreaking piece of legislation. It was the foundation for a strategy that has made Ontario’s enclosed public spaces and workplaces safer and healthier, that has supported people who want to quit smoking, and that has made it harder for young people to get caught up in this dangerous habit. But in the decade since the act was written, a great deal has changed.

Madam Speaker, I represent the riding of Ottawa South, so I want to give a bit of a shout-out right now to the former member from Ottawa–Orléans, Phil McNeely, who brought in an amendment on power walls. He did a lot to prevent youth from starting to smoke. I know it was something that was very important to him. He was a city councillor and worked very closely with Medical Officer of Health Rob Cushman and then-Mayor Bob Chiarelli on some other groundbreaking work in terms of banning smoking in restaurants and bars, which at the time was a very controversial thing.

People felt that it was going to severely affect businesses. In fact, it actually had the opposite impact and increased business in restaurants in Ottawa. So I thought it was important to give them a shout-out this morning. They’re a big part of how we got to where we are today, and I know that Phil would be very supportive of this piece of legislation.

We need to understand two things, specifically. One is the introduction of e-cigarettes into the marketplace. They’re increasingly popular today, when they weren’t 10 years ago. The other thing, of course, is the use of medical marijuana as a treatment for pain, glaucoma and other ailments. When the Smoke-Free Ontario Act was written, there was no need to think about the implications with respect to marijuana. Today, there is, and so we are here.

The legislation we have before us today would, if passed, amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to allow for the inclusion of substances other than just tobacco. That, in turn, would allow our government to move ahead with proposed regulatory amendments that would bring medical marijuana under the umbrella of the act, prescribing it as a substance that is subject to the act’s “no smoking” rules—simple, logical and in keeping with the times.

Also, in keeping with the times, this amendment would be in line with other amendments we have proposed to the regulation made under the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015, which would prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free places such as restaurant and bar patios, playgrounds and publicly owned sporting areas, including—and this is important—using vaporizers to consume medical marijuana. That was not something we needed to worry about a decade ago, but it is something we must be aware of today.

I would now like to take my colleagues through the specifics of what we are proposing to do with these amendments to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. First and foremost, we are proposing to expand on a very basic concept in our society; that is, the idea of “No Smoking.” Where it once simply meant not smoking tobacco, it would now be broader than that.

If passed, the legislation we are considering today would allow the government to prescribe, by regulation, products or substances beyond tobacco that would be subject to the act’s “no smoking” rules; specifically, medical marijuana. If you can’t smoke the one, you can’t smoke the other. If you see a sign that says “No Smoking,” you know that, just as it is not okay to smoke tobacco, it is not okay to smoke medical marijuana.

To be very clear, this isn’t a judgment on the efficacy of medical marijuana; it is a reflection of a concern we have all had for many, many years about the effects and dangers of second-hand smoke. For obvious reasons, those concerns apply as much to medical marijuana as they do to tobacco.

We also propose to amend the act to list very clearly where it would be illegal to smoke a prescribed product or substance. That would be as follows:

—enclosed public spaces;

—enclosed workplaces;

—schools, as defined in the Education Act;

—the building or grounds of a private school or, in instances where the private school is not the only occupant of a property, the grounds annexed to the school;

—the common area in a condominium, apartment building, or university or college residence, including elevators, hallways, parking garages, party or entertainment rooms, laundry facilities, lobbies and exercise areas;

—child care centres, places where home child care is provided or places where an early years program or services are provided as defined by the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014;

—the reserved seating area of a sports arena or entertainment venue;

—motor vehicles while a person less than 16 years old is present; or

—any other area prescribed by regulation as smoke-free, which currently includes the outdoor grounds of hospitals and provincial government office buildings; nine metres surrounding any entrance or exit of a hospital, long-term-care home or independent health facility; restaurant and bar patios; children’s playgrounds and public areas within 20 metres of the playground; and publicly owned sporting areas, adjacent spectator areas and public areas within 20 metres of these areas.

None of these should be a surprise. These are all places where smoking tobacco is already prohibited. As I said a moment ago, the idea here is that if you can’t smoke one, you can’t smoke the other.

The amendments we are proposing would also place a responsibility on employers or proprietors who control, if you will, enclosed workplaces, enclosed public spaces or any other public location on the list I just read. They would have the same responsibilities they now have with respect to the smoking of tobacco, but those responsibilities would be extended to include the new prescribed substances.

Employers and proprietors are currently responsible for ensuring that people in the public spaces or workplaces they control comply with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. They are currently responsible for posting proper “No Smoking” signage and for ensuring that anyone who refuses to obey those signs is removed from the area.

If the amendments we are proposing should pass, employers and proprietors would continue to be responsible for these things, but their responsibilities would also cover other prescribed products and substances, specifically medical marijuana. It’s really very simple: The Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, as the name implies, is about protecting people from second-hand smoke. If you are smoking tobacco in public places, you are subjecting the people around you to second-hand smoke. If you are smoking medical marijuana in public places, you are subjecting the people around you to second-hand smoke.

In situations where the smoking of tobacco is inappropriate, then surely the smoking of medical marijuana should be as well.

There is one workplace exception that we consider to be important, and that is in scientific research and testing facilities. We are proposing an exemption for scientific research and testing facilities where people, as part of their job description or participation in a study, smoke or hold lighted prescribed products or substances. That exemption would extend to whomever was smoking or holding the lighted prescribed product or substance, as well as to employers and proprietors of the facilities.

Our government recognizes the importance of science and research, specifically with respect to learning more about the effects of medical marijuana and other substances that might be smoked. It would be our intention to support research into these things as opposed to deterring it, and that is why we are proposing this exemption.

Finally on this, we come to the proper application and enforcement of the law. Right now, we have clear rules around inspectors and inspection of tobacco law compliance, and clear penalties that are applied when people fail to obey tobacco law. This proposed legislation, if passed, would extend those rules and those penalties to medical marijuana and any other prescribed products or substances.

Speaker, in proposing these amendments, we are trying to accomplish two very important things: One, we are trying to bring our smoking laws into line with the new smoking reality, and that reality is that a growing number of people smoke medical marijuana; and two, we are trying to lay the groundwork for future flexibility, so that if another smokable substance starts to gain popularity, we can protect people from the harms associated with smoking that substance as well. As I said earlier: simple, logical, clear and in keeping with the times.

As I noted earlier, this proposed legislation would ensure consistency with other regulations we have proposed. As noted by the associate minister, our government is also proposing certain amendments to the regulation under the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015, that would mirror “no smoking” rules. These would prohibit using e-cigarettes and vaporizers to consume any substance, including medical marijuana, in smoke-free places such as restaurant and bar patios, playgrounds and publicly owned sporting areas.

In addition, we are proposing to establish rules around the display and promotion of e-cigarettes at places where they are sold. We are proposing that the prohibition on using e-cigarettes in an enclosed workplace and enclosed public place under the Electronic Cigarettes Act apply to the testing or sampling of e-cigarettes in retail stores and vapour lounges. We are proposing to expand the list of places where e-cigarettes are prohibited for sale, such as schools, universities, child care centres and so forth.

In all of this, we are applying the same logic, fairness and commitment to protecting Ontarians that guided us originally when we brought in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Second-hand smoke is a danger. Second-hand vape is a potential danger, and we simply don’t know enough about it at this time. Our first and most important responsibility is to protect Ontarians from danger, and these proposed amendments do that. They are also fair and consistent.

We want to put in place legislation and regulations that take into consideration reasonable use of medical marijuana, whether smoked or vaped, but do not allow that use to harm others. The exception would be the display and promotion rules for e-cigarettes, which would come into force on January 1, 2017, to help businesses adjust to the new reality.

The legislation before us today is a testament to common sense, fairness and responsiveness to public need. We have been hearing for some time from employers and businesses that they want and need clear and consistent direction from the province on the smoking of medical marijuana in public places. We are proposing to provide that direction, and the direction we are proposing to provide is one that falls into line with the “no smoking” rules for tobacco.

Basically, we have rules designed to protect Ontarians from second-hand smoke. We have rules particularly designed to protect kids from second-hand smoke.

Medical marijuana is a new kind of second-hand smoke, and so we are proposing to adjust our rules accordingly so that all our protections still apply. In addition to that, we recognize that e-cigarettes and vaping present a new potential danger, both to young users and to people exposed to second-hand vapour.

We are proposing to apply the same common sense and fairness to the protection of Ontarians on that front. The Smoke-Free Ontario Act and our broader strategy on smoking have changed this province for the better. We are proud of that and we are determined to ensure that that continues.

Madam Speaker, I’ll also be sharing my time with the associate minister, but I just want to finish up here.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act and our broader strategy on smoking have changed this province for the better. We are proud of that and we are determined to ensure that will continue. That means adapting to changing times. It means reflecting the current reality and it means identifying new threats to health and safety, and acting accordingly.

I cannot imagine that anyone in this chamber would disagree with me on that, so I urge my colleagues to support the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: It truly is an honour and a privilege to rise and speak to the third reading of the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016. I want to thank Parliamentary Assistant John Fraser, not only for all of the work he has done on the smoke-free Ontario file, but more broadly on many areas within the Ministry of Health and in particular around hospices. Thank you, John, for all of that.

I would also like to inform you, Speaker, that when I was asked to take on the role of Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I was given a mandate to promote wellness in this province. In my two years in this role, I have had the opportunity to travel and speak to many groups on many different occasions. If there is one message I have worked hard to convey at every opportunity, it is that prevention is more powerful than our most effective medical intervention. Or, as that old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I’m sure there’s a metric version to it that I’ll one day find out.

Another single, most important step any one of us can take to ensure our own good health is to make the choice to be a non-smoker, ideally by never taking up smoking in the first place, but making the decision to quit and taking the necessary steps to succeed is equally important.

I am pleased to report that we have a strong record of programs and legislation that support both of these choices. Our work goes even further. We have also taken bold steps to protect non-smokers from the well-documented dangers of second-hand smoke, and we have made real and measurable progress toward making Ontario smoke-free.

Let me cite some very telling numbers. In 2000, 24.5% of Ontarians, nearly one in four people, were smokers. Today, that number is down to 17.4%. That’s over 400,000 fewer smokers in Ontario today than in the year 2000. That’s 400,000 healthier Ontarians.

There is only one way that kind of progress gets made, and that’s when people come together and unite in a common cause. When we unite for the benefit of the people, we are able to better serve as political leaders, as public health planners and providers, and as caregivers. That’s why just last week, many of those people were gathered here at Queen’s Park for a well-deserved celebration as we marked the 10th anniversary of our government’s Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy and the passage of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act into law on May 31, 2006.

I was really pleased that this was a non-partisan event and that we had MPP Yurek, who is the health critic for the Conservatives, and Madame France Gélinas, who is the health critic for the NDP, also present at the Heather Crowe awards and the celebration of Smoke-Free Ontario’s 10th anniversary.

We created what the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario has called one of the toughest anti-tobacco laws in the world. The Smoke-Free Ontario Act banned smoking in all enclosed public places and enclosed workplaces. It is worth remembering just how significant a change that was. It wouldn’t be overstating the matter to call it a seismic shift. Change on that scale is never easy and is often accompanied by spirited debate. It is also worth remembering that there were those, at the time, who said our ban on smoking in enclosed public places couldn’t, or shouldn’t, be implemented. There were others who said it would be unenforceable or impractical.

I’m proud to be able to stand here today and report that we did not listen to the naysayers. Instead, we chose to lead. It is because of the steps we took in 2006 and in the years since that we have made such dramatic progress toward creating a smoke-free culture here in Ontario. Together, we put an end to smoking in motor vehicles where there are children under the age of 16. We have prohibited the sale of flavoured tobacco, which we know is a product that is targeted at young people to get them hooked early—what other reason could there be for cherry-flavoured tobacco?

We put an end to the sale of tobacco products on university and college campuses, and an end to smoking on playgrounds and publicly owned sports fields, and bar and restaurant patios. As of January 1 this year, we introduced a ban on the sale or supply of electronic cigarettes to minors.

To commemorate all the progress we have made together, we took the opportunity, on May 31, to present 10 individuals, groups and organizations with awards recognizing their contributions toward making Ontario smoke-free. The awards were named after Heather Crowe, who famously advocated for awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Her work helped inspire the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Heather, as some of you may know, had never smoked a day in her life but developed lung cancer after being exposed to second-hand smoke in her workplace over many years. Sadly, Heather Crowe died in 2006, just nine days—nine short days—before the act came into law.

The recipients of the awards named in her honour have continued Heather’s work by helping more people to live smoke-free in communities across this province. They include Dr. Ted Boadway, whose pioneering work with the Ontario Medical Association has been driving tobacco control health policy in Ontario since the early 1990s; the city of Hamilton Board of Health for their groundbreaking work in smoking prevention among young people; and the University of Ottawa Heart Institute for their landmark work in developing the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation, which is aimed at providing support to smokers looking to quit.

Speaking of smoking cessation, I had the opportunity at our May 31 event to announce the next phase of our plan to help Ontario smokers become non-smokers. It’s called Helping Smokers Quit: Ontario’s Smoking Cessation Action Plan. As I said earlier, the best choice Ontarians can make with regard to smoking is never to start. The second-best choice they can make is to quit. The evidence tells us that most people who smoke want to quit. In fact, about half a million Ontarians who smoke say they intend to quit in the next 30 days, and over one million Ontarians say they intend to quit in the next six months.

The evidence also tells us that nicotine is highly addictive. That makes quitting hard—very hard—and we acknowledge that. That is why it may sometimes take close to 30 attempts before someone can stop smoking. Because quitting is so difficult, the health care system must be there to provide help and support on the first attempt and every attempt. That is why we put in place a new set of initiatives to help.

First, we’re investing an additional $5 million in 2016-17 to get the right supports to populations with high smoking rates, starting this year. These populations could include, for example, indigenous people; people with chronic conditions or a number of serious health problems; people with mental health and addictions issues; people who work in the industrial and service sectors; young adults; people who are at high risk of poor health outcomes from smoking, such as people in hospitals; and people whose smoking will have a negative impact on their own and others’ health, such as young women who are pregnant or have just had a baby.

We will also be taking additional steps to let smokers know where they can find the help they need to quit. We are creating a new online smoking cessation hub. It will function as a centralized access point to help smokers navigate the system and find local services and tools to help them quit.

We are also developing a common look and feel for all cessation services and doing more to integrate and promote them. That’s why we’re creating a cessation service network. It will help make services better coordinated and easier to find for people who need them.

We’re also expanding province-wide quit line services. Our new service will provide coaching and counselling by phone and text. More importantly, it will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because we know that Ontarians don’t need support just during business hours, because we know that Ontarians don’t want to quit smoking just during business hours.

Lastly, we will actively monitor and evaluate the cessation action plan to ensure that all tobacco users in Ontario and their families have easy access to a coordinated system of supportive, effective and efficient cessation services.

All of our work around smoking over the last few months and years has been focused around one goal, and that is to see the province of Ontario achieve the lowest smoking rate in Canada. Over the past 10 years, we’ve seen a remarkable drop in the number of people who smoke. Right now, we have the third-lowest rate of smoking in the country, slightly behind British Columbia and Manitoba. Yet two million Ontarians—almost one in five—still smoke, and each year tobacco claims 13,000 lives. So we have more work to do.

Speaker, I’m confident that our new smoking cessation action plan will move us forward toward our goal.

I’m also confident that because of the steps we are taking, more people who use tobacco will try to quit. More people who use tobacco will receive support to quit. More people who are trying to quit will succeed. More health care settings and providers will offer effective, person-centred cessation support. The rates of smoking among groups of Ontarians who have particularly high rates of smoking will decrease. The health gap will close.

The amendment before this House speaks to the regulation of medical marijuana, and my colleague has spoken at great length about the specifics of the proposed legislation already. I want to stress for everyone that this amendment is another critical piece in our overall strategy to protect Ontarians from the dangers of second-hand smoke. Because of the advocacy of people like Heather Crowe and many, many others, we are well aware of the dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke.

Today, we need to take into consideration the potential impact of second-hand smoke from medical marijuana. We all know that the federal government has committed to legalizing marijuana in Canada. Currently, access to medical marijuana is regulated under the federal framework. Individuals who seek to access medical marijuana from a licensed producer require a medical document from a physician.

But our government understands that the federal government is considering changes to marijuana laws. This has heightened public and stakeholder interest in the controls that governments have put in place to protect people from potential public health harms associated with marijuana, be it medical or otherwise. Our government has taken a clear position on this issue. We believe there need to be strict controls in place. That is why I believe the time has come to make some changes to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act that would enable the government to prescribe products and substances other than tobacco that would be subject to the same rules.

Our proposed approach is intended to protect Ontarians, especially children and youth, from exposure to second-hand tobacco and medical marijuana smoke.

Speaker, since taking on my role as associate minister, I have spoken a great deal about the importance of protecting our youth from the dangers of tobacco. We know that children are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke exposure, and the evidence proves that young people are less likely to become regular smokers when they grow up in places with strong tobacco-control laws. We need to do everything in our power to prevent people from taking up smoking in the first place—and if not, then helping those who do smoke to quit, and quit successfully.

We also need to do everything we can to protect all Ontarians from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, be it from tobacco or medical marijuana.

I am confident that there is significant support for our amendments to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act from public health and tobacco-control stakeholders, as well as most businesses and employers in Ontario.

I am confident that all members in this House can stand behind our proposed legislation that will help make Ontario the healthiest place in North America to grow up and grow old.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I am going to be sharing my time with the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

I’m happy to be here to be speaking to the third reading of Bill 178, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016.

I was at the celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act a couple of weeks ago. I relayed a story in my speech on just how smoking has changed in this province. I found it quite interesting. I remember in the 1970s, when I was going to the Saturday matinees, there was always this commercial with the two Bic lighters arguing about being allowed to flick their Bic in the theatre. The fact that we had that argument, that people were adamant that they were allowed to smoke during the movies, was quite interesting.

I remember, in the same time, I used to fill in on Sundays when my dad did inventory at the pharmacy. One of my jobs was to take the big ashtray sitting at the dispensary counter and clean it out. It was interesting that you would come into a pharmacy to get your pills to treat heart disease, lung disease, cancer, prostate problems and gout, and maybe be smoking a cigarette while you were waiting.

I remember, even later on, when I was a stock boy—I guess in the mid-1980s—that one of my favourite customers would run out of cash halfway through the month and couldn’t smoke. She would be so excited when her monthly cheque came in that she’d cash it and run to our store and buy cigarettes. That’s another thing: You could buy cigarettes at a pharmacy. She would sit down in front of the dispensary counter and light up and smoke a couple of cigarettes, just because there was a chair there and she thought she really needed to get her nicotine fix.

I’m glad that in the 1990s, the College of Pharmacists worked to ban smoking in pharmacies. A friend of mine in London, who still practises today, Jim Semchism, owns Ealing Pharmacy. He’s just ending his term at the OPA, but he was OCP president at that time. He led the charge. He took a lot of flak for pushing to end sales of tobacco in pharmacies. I think, at the end of the day, it really helped to profile a pharmacy as a health care institution as opposed to more of a convenience store. I’m grateful that that change has happened. Then, in 2006, we had the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and now here we are with Bill 178 that has come forward.

I mentioned earlier, in second reading, that this bill is really here because the government moved too fast on Bill 45. They rushed it. They didn’t consult. That has been the underlying theme: the proper consultations that need to go forward. They missed something in Bill 45 and this bill is a reaction to that, to close up the loophole which has taken the whole spring session to move through the Legislature. We’ll hopefully have it passed before we recess.

Unfortunately, we could have had something else to be debating, some other issue that is more pertinent to Ontarians, like dealing with wind turbines and allowing municipalities to have that veto. The survey has come back saying that municipalities and people would like to see them have a veto over where they place the wind turbines.

I know in Dunwich, my area of my riding, they are getting the wind turbines—they didn’t ask for them, 84% of them said they don’t want the wind turbines; they’re getting them. Malahide, which is right beside Dunwich, said, “We’ll take the wind turbines,” and they didn’t get them. We can have more discussion about that, but the fact is that we had to deal with Bill 178 because the government didn’t consult and rushed through Bill 45.

Now they’re working on regulations with Bill 45 which—I’m hoping they’re listening to the vape store owners, the ones who sell the vaporizers for people, to ensure that they’re not going to run them out of business with the strict regulations that may come forward. Hopefully they’re now consulting on that one. But now we’re dealing with Bill 178, which is to close the loophole that was created by this government.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2006, was really brought forward due to Heather Crowe. They talked about her at the 10-year anniversary and the fact that she was a worker who never smoked a day in her life and, due to second-hand smoke—I think it was a restaurant she worked in—developed cancer and she died. That’s unfortunate, and smoking in restaurants and bars etc. has ended and hopefully the second-hand smoke that caused those cancers is very much limited.

I remember in my twenties coming home from going out for the night and, in the morning, my clothes smelling of smoke because of the smoking. Nowadays you can go to a restaurant or you can go out for a couple of drinks and come home and that smell isn’t on you. I’m a non-smoker so I really do notice the smell of smoke and it’s kind of nice not to have that, so I was pleased to celebrate the Smoke-Free Ontario Act that ensured that I don’t have to put up with second-hand smoke while I’m eating my meals. I really appreciate that.

Back to Bill 178: We just finished committee work and debating. If the government did have to bring forth legislation to close that gap because they rushed through and didn’t consult, they had the opportunity to make this bill a little tougher and actually deal with the other causes of smoking, the unrecorded smoking, the contraband problem that we have in this province. They talk about how smoking rates have decreased, but they have no real numbers on the amount of people who are just buying contraband and not paying the taxes that they could be collecting. What are the rates of smokers that are smoking contraband tobacco? It’s something this government has shied away from dealing with.

Something they don’t seem to want to deal with is people purchasing their cigarettes illegally. Who knows what’s in the cigarettes to start with, but the fact that the cost of contraband is so much cheaper than buying them at the store because we have high taxes on cigarettes—which is fine with me—is something this government is either afraid to deal with it or doesn’t think is important. I think that’s terrible.

Contraband cigarettes focus on our children in our high schools because it’s cheap. They go to the schools and they sell them by the bags. We need opportunity and we need teeth in legislation to deal with this. Bill 178 was an opportunity to add this into the legislation, something that we could have been supporting 100% and promoting—that we’re finally going to deal with the illegal cigarette trade and hopefully decrease smoking that way, but also increase tax into the government because they’ll be buying more legal cigarettes, and also deal with illicit activities that are ongoing in this province. That was something that was missed in this legislation.

During committee, which we just finished, our party brought forth three amendments. Typically, what happens in this session of the Legislature—this 41st Legislature—this government didn’t accept any amendments brought forth by the opposition. It’s becoming a theme, and it’s quite concerning. You name the bill that we sit through and we seem to have the government side not willing to fix legislation when we bring amendments.

We thought our amendments brought forward were going to be helpful in strengthening the bill: to ensure that the definition of a combusted material is in the legislation, to deal with vaping; to ensure the by-products of the combusted material are regulated so we don’t have that second-hand smoke. Unfortunately, they didn’t want to hear that. They said it was a “redundant” activity, to ensure that we had a difference between what is smoke and what is vapour. On this side of the House, we thought that we needed to have a clear definition of smoke and vapour.

Our second amendment of the act was for

section 12.1. We wanted to add that the

section does not apply to the smoking of medical marijuana or to the holding of lighted medical marijuana in a private dwelling; or a vape lounge or compassion lounge that allows for indoor space for individuals to consume medical marijuana.

There’s a difference between recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Medical marijuana is being used as a medicine. It’s being used as something that is necessary in the treatment of pain, of epilepsy, fibromyalgia. It’s something that people need access to. What we wanted to do at the time is allow those who need the medical marijuana to access it in their homes, to access medical marijuana in compassion lounges that could be set up for these people, that allow them not to be smoking medical marijuana or vaping out in public, but to be inside a safe place in order for them to have their medication.

We felt there shouldn’t be any restrictions infringing on the rights of individuals to use their medication in their own homes, regardless of their living situation or municipal laws. We also feel that vape lounges or compassion lounges provide a safe space to those who are using medical marijuana to medicate.

We do want to highlight, too—and we did hear from committee that there’s a growing number of people who are using marijuana for palliative care. It’s a medication with fewer side effects, which is giving them the comfort they need during this terrible time in their life.

Under proper regulation, compassion lounges to allow for the vaping or smoking of medical marijuana could be created to create a safe zone for those people. But the government said the motion can be discussed at the time of regulations. We’re hoping that they will have this discussion during regulations, but I don’t feel hopeful based on the fact that this government somehow wants to combine recreational marijuana use and medical marijuana use under the same class when in fact it should be separate.

Our third and final amendment for this

section of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act was set out in

section 4 of the bill. It was:

“Application

“

(1.2) Despite clause (1)(a), this

section does not apply to the smoking of medical marijuana, or to the holding of medical marijuana, in an enclosed workplace by an employee if an employer who exercises control over the enclosed workplace declares the workplace to be medical-marijuana friendly.”

This amendment basically allowed the option for employers to accommodate the use of medical marijuana by their employees. We would probably be hoping that the employer would allow vaping of the medical marijuana due to the decrease in effects with those in the surroundings. Business owners would have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to accommodate their employees. It wouldn’t be forced on the employers, but it would give the business owners the ability to accommodate them.

We did hear from a fibromyalgia sufferer during committee that in fact he was able to return to full-time work for the first time since 2001 because his employer allowed him to use medical marijuana. It returned someone back to the workforce, who is now completely part of society. He’s not away, in pain, in his own house. He is contributing through taxes and he’s part of the local economy. It was his employer who gave him that ability to access his medication.

This amendment that we put forward was going to allow that to occur. We wanted to ensure that more people in this province could have the opportunity to have access to their medication and return to a full lifestyle, participating in the local economy. But this government voted that down, and unfortunately, there wasn’t much discussion on that issue.

I think, at the end of the day, when the government comes forward and deals with the regulations regarding Bill 178, that they should truly look at medical marijuana, not at the whole use of recreational marijuana. I understand the federal government is going to legalize the product down the road. That definitely needs to be followed under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. But the fact that medical marijuana is a legalized prescription, with growing usage throughout the province through its benefits—we need to ensure that we’re not passing laws that are banning the use of medication.

I would imagine, from what I’ve heard, that we might see a couple of court challenges come forward with regard to this bill, due to the fact that it is going to be restricting use of medical marijuana. Maybe the government can fix it during the regulation creation. But hopefully we don’t have to come back again to deal with something that this government, due to lack of consultation, has caused.

We gave some sound amendments which were voted down, and we’re sad that happened. I will be supporting this legislation at final reading. I think it’s something where we need to close that gap caused by a lack of consultation. I hope the government has learned its lesson. We’re ending this session for the spring, we’re coming back in the fall, and I know the government has brought forth the Patients First legislation. They had some pre-consultation, although I’m pretty sure the bill was written long before the consultation started.

They have the summer to really get out and start talking to Ontarians about health care. I hope they’ve learned their lesson this time, and hopefully they can go forward and make the proper changes to the legislation to ensure that there is reduced bureaucracy and improved patient care at the end of the day.

We hope that happens. We know there is a bill out about finance reform in this province. The committee is taking their time to tour the province. I’m hoping the government is going to be open to making changes to the legislation they proposed. I hope they actually listen to Ontarians. They didn’t really listen to the opposition. They wrote a note on the back of a napkin one day in the Premier’s kitchen—but we need to ensure that legislation gets done correctly. Good government has good consultation. We need the government to better itself.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I look forward to my colleague.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’ve been involved with this bill and I’ve made my comments known. I think when we actually debate this bill, we have to look at the entirety of the full body of law that this bill affects and how it affects people.

The title of the bill is

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I would suggest a more accurate title to this bill would be “An Act to prevent and eliminate harm reduction in the province of Ontario,” because that’s actually what it will do.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I see the member for Beaches–East York finds this all very funny. I remember, during the committee hearings, he was laughing and joking when people were describing how they required medicinal marijuana to alleviate the significant pain and suffering they were experiencing, and how this bill would prevent and limit their ability to ease their suffering.

I think that just goes to describe, in my view, Speaker, the lack of comprehension, the lack of understanding, by the Associate Minister of Health and the Liberal caucus on just what this bill does and how it’s going to impact people. These are serious. The minister said that her job was to promote wellness. Bill 45 and Bill 178 actually do the exact opposite.

I just want to read a couple of comments. This is one from the CBC from April 28 of this year: “Smokers should be encouraged to use e-cigarettes as a safer alternative, Britain’s Royal College of Physicians says in a sharp departure”—a sharp departure.

“Thursday’s report is based on expert opinion and concludes the hazards to health from inhaling e-cigarette vapours” provide less harm than smoking tobacco.

Of course, these bills will restrict and prevent the use of vapers.

The authors of the report, Nicotine Without Smoke: Tobacco Harm Reduction, say people smoke because they are addicted to nicotine, but the actual harm is by the tar and the cancer-causing chemicals from the products of combustion.

“It calls smoking the biggest avoidable cause of death and disability and social inequalities in health” in the United Kingdom.

“Previously in Britain, the evidence base for the safety claim of e-cigarettes has been called” extraordinarily flimsy, but also with conflicts of interest.

“E-cigarettes heat liquid, often containing nicotine, into vapour. Use of e-cigarettes or vaping is proposed as a lower-risk alternative....” Speaker, that’s harm reduction, reducing the harm.

This is probably the most prestigious anti-smoking group and the most prestigious and recognized group of physicians in the world. This government didn’t listen to them in the committee hearings. They didn’t listen to the amendments that were offered by us, and voted them down.

This report, by Professor John Britton of the Royal College of Physicians and his co-authors, goes on: “E-cigarettes and other non-tobacco nicotine products offer the potential radically to reduce harm from smoking in our society. This is an opportunity that should be managed and taken,” not prevented.

There has been a host of evidence that was presented to the committees, and all dismissed by the Associate Minister of Health and the Liberal caucus.

Harm reduction is absolutely recognized by our courts. There’s no doubt that this bill and Bill 45 will be challenged.

I should just also state for the record, Madam Speaker, that Bill 178 does not actually specify medical marijuana anywhere in it, or any other. It uses the term “prescribed products.” Just so that every member of the Liberal bench—and our own over here—understands, this Associate Minister of Health, or any subsequent minister, can prescribe any product as a tobacco product. If they choose to prescribe apples as a tobacco product, they have the lawful authority under Bill 178.

They’re using it, as we are told, for medicinal marijuana but there are no limitations on what they can deem to be a tobacco product. It’s a very extraordinary and undue use of authority because that would be done by regulation and outside the scrutiny of this Legislature. It’s extraordinary, in my view, that they would go to that length to give the minister that broad of latitude to describe anything—anything—as a tobacco product.

That goes back to part of this discussion and part of what the College of Physicians and Surgeons said. This Liberal government still doesn’t understand the difference between fog and smoke. Fog is not harmful. It’s mist; it’s condensation. It is not harmful to people. That’s what electronic nicotine delivery systems produce: fog, not smoke. Smoke is a product of combustion. That’s where the cancer-causing harm comes from.

It’s interesting as well that we’re having this debate on Bill 178 at the same time that the federal Parliament is debating Bill C-14, and the Senate is now deliberating on Bill C-14, the result of a Supreme Court decision. That Supreme Court decision, of course, said that our laws must recognize and be consistent with allowing people choices on how they will die, choices to alleviate the pain and suffering, and to allow them to die with dignity. How can it be that this government says, “We will not allow people the choice on how they will live and how they will ease their pain and suffering during their life,” when the Supreme Court has said, “We must allow it at end of life”?

I think it’s wildly inconsistent with our jurisprudence and with our rulings of the court that Bill 178 and Bill 45 will be allowed to stand for any period of time. We’ve seen this. The Liberal Party heard this during the debate on Bill 115 with the teachers’ unions and the undue restriction and the elimination of collective bargaining rights with Bill 115 a couple of years ago. Of course, earlier this year, the courts struck down Bill 115 as unconstitutional.

People should learn from their mistakes. This Liberal government ought to learn from their mistakes. They ought to listen to people—listen to experts, but listen to people—and make their laws consistent with our expectations and make them consistent with our Charter of Rights and our Constitution.

I want to just quote a statement from Douglas Elliott. Doug Elliott is a renowned lawyer. He’s been involved in a number of constitutional challenges. He has been well regarded and well understood to be an expert on constitutional challenges. He describes Bill 178 and Bill 45 regulations as “arbitrary and draconian” and says, “I find them the most severe than any other product in Ontario,” and is confident that a charter challenge will be launched under

section 7.

Speaker, the government could have prevented what will undoubtedly, invariably, end up as a challenge by listening to and enacting the amendments we offered in committee.

We did offer up in committee an amendment that businesses would be able to designate themselves as a medicinal-marijuana-friendly business and allow medicinal marijuana users to use their prescriptions in a less harmful fashion in their workplace. That could have been done. The minister chose not to. Again, just for the record, there is no evidence that vapour causes any second-hand consequences or negatives. It is not harmful.

They could have allowed people who are suffering the dignity to continue to work but take their prescription in a less harmful fashion by way of vaping. But they chose not to. They dismissed it. We’re not sure what the regulations are actually going to look like. They may end up deeming apples and oranges as tobacco products in the workplace as well. Who knows? We do know that it is their intent.

I want to expand on this a little bit. I’ve heard the discussion, from all sides of the House, at second reading and at third reading, and it’s interesting: In every presentation, every debate, people speak of the days when people smoked cigarettes in cinemas or on airplanes or—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: In the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —or in the Legislature. But that’s long gone. We have ended those practices. People don’t do that anymore. This bill may have been justified back in those days, but that is not how our society conducts itself now. We do not see people attempting to smoke joints on our transit systems. We do not see people smoking joints in our restaurants and bars. That just doesn’t happen.

Actually, I’ve challenged and I’ve asked for any evidence that the Liberal government may have to suggest that this is a problem, that there is a wide group of people using their medicinal marijuana out in public places. Of course, there is no evidence, but they’re going to prevent you from using it anywhere in this province—in your workplace, even when that workplace and the people who work with you deem it to be an acceptable practice.

Think of the person in a hospice or somebody in palliative care who wants to alleviate their pain and suffering and use an electronic nicotine delivery system that doesn’t produce harmful side effects. They want to alleviate their pain and the hospice or palliative care institution says, “No, that’s unlawful. We can’t allow you to lessen your pain. You’ll have to crawl or find your way outside somewhere, nine metres beyond the door of that hospice, to alleviate your pain.” I think it’s an incredible and undue hardship that this government is placing on people who are suffering.

Also, taking away and restricting the ability for people to actually reduce their addiction to nicotine and to reduce the harm that they’re experiencing—I would think that if this minister was serious about promoting wellness, was serious about helping people to not smoke, they would focus their attention on contraband tobacco and prevent the truckloads of cheap, smuggled tobacco from coming into our schoolyards. That would be a tangible and effective way to help people.

However, this government will not tackle the real problems. Maybe I’ll just put this in context for everyone, Speaker. The only reason why we have Bill 178 in front of us, and why it’s at third reading right now, is because of the ill-chosen words of the Associate Minister of Health after Bill 45, when she went out and said people will be free to smoke joints anywhere now. That’s what her words were.

The Premier quickly went into damage control over those ill-chosen and false statements by the associate minister, and Bill 178 is the result of those ill-chosen words by the associate minister. An attack on harm reduction is now the Liberal damage control for those ill-chosen words.

There are countless studies. I would encourage the members on the Liberal bench, if they are so inclined to be informed and to be knowledgeable before they cast their votes on third reading, to actually look at Hansard.

Linda Bauld, a professor at the University of Stirling and deputy director at the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, in another co-authored report, states, “This is what harm reduction is—it reduces the harm from tobacco while recognizing that some people will still use nicotine in other safer forms.”

“The anti-smoking group ASH UK welcomed the report, saying it showed ‘that switching to vaping is a positive and sensible life choice’ for smokers.”

Why is this government taking away that positive and sensible life choice for smokers? Why are they condemning tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to continue their addiction in the most harmful fashion that is known, using products of combustion, and not encouraging people to do less harm to themselves?

Bill 178 could have been amended and ought to have been amended, but it will be amended, if not by this Legislature then by the courts. It will be struck down.

I, for one, will not vote in favour of a bill that condemns people to greater harm, to greater misery, to greater pain instead of alleviating it. I will not be supporting Bill 178.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate? I recognize the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I will start the five minutes of my hour lead, I would say, pretty much similarly to what my colleagues have done so far. It’s really to say that Bill 178 is one more example of the Liberal government who refuses to listen, the Liberal government who is so convinced that they know it all. They are Liberal, therefore they make no mistakes. All they need to do is talk to one another and the truth with a capital T shows up.

Well, they are wrong. We just dealt with this bill. We brought forward amendments; all of them were turned down. If they had taken time to listen we would not be here, going through all of this first and second reading—all of this to change four words in a bill: “and other prescribed substances.” That’s all that bill does. It changes four words in an existing bill that we worked on for a year. But through all of that time, it didn’t matter what we said. They had their talking points, and that’s all they kept giving us.

I don’t understand. We are all elected from all 107 ridings throughout this province. We all come here to try to make Ontario a better place. We are legislators. We work on bills. I read my bills. I do my homework. I bring provisions forward that make sense, and so do my colleagues, but it doesn’t matter. They refuse to listen. And what happens when you refuse to listen, Speaker? You make mistakes.

Bill 178: All it is is a correction of a mistake. I hope they learn from this. I hope that we get something of value out of all of this time, effort and energy that we have put to bring Bill 178 to where it is now. If there’s something to be learned, it’s that you have two ears and one mouth. Listen twice as much as you speak and we will all be ahead of where we are now. Even Liberal members have two ears and one mouth. They should listen twice as much as they speak, and we would all be further ahead than where we are now.

In the meantime, harm was done. It’s not going to be the Liberal members who will pay for that harm. It will be the small businesses who took a bill that we had modified and said, “Well, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act has been modified. Here’s what it is right now, so I will open up my business.” They invested their own money, they borrowed, they did renovations; they opened businesses throughout our province, and now all of them are facing uncertainty. All of them are facing a future where they don’t know if their personal savings are all going to be gone.

All of them are facing a future where their small business has a good chance of not being allowed in Ontario anymore. Why? Because the Liberals refused to listen and put a bill forward that had mistakes in it.

Now all of those good people throughout Ontario who followed the process—and believe me, Speaker, there were hundreds of people, thousands of people, who followed this process. I have never seen such a broad-based engagement as when we did modifications to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act last year. People who had never paid attention to the legislative process were involved, wrote letters, sent us emails, came as deputants—hundreds of them. Hundreds? Thousands of them got involved in that process. You could ask the Clerk who was in charge: The number of phone calls that she was receiving at the time was just phenomenal.

But it didn’t matter how many people wanted to speak. It didn’t matter how many people reached out to them. They were Liberal members. They knew better than anybody else, and they refused to listen. And because they refused to listen, we are here today looking at third reading.

I can see that you’re about to stand up, so I will keep the rest of my lead for tomorrow. Thank you, Speaker.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it’s almost 10:15, we’ll recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table a special report from the Auditor General of Ontario on the 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature today Anne and Lloyd McIntyre, who are here from the Acton area. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m pleased to welcome the students and staff and teachers of Markstay Public School. I don’t think they’re in the gallery yet, but I’m pleased to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome to Queen’s Park Brandon Machado. He’s a resident of the great riding of York South–Weston, and he’s here with us today to celebrate the Portuguese flag-raising that will be held on the front lawn at 3 p.m.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce Lisa Sommers and Doris Walter Schachter. They will be joining me for lunch today at Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to welcome today to the Legislature Nancy and her son and daughter, Leo and Siena Marchese, who are here to shadow me today at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Ms. Fattaneh Jalali, Ms. Laurinda Da Cruz and Ms. Zarine Dordi from the Working Women Community Centre to the Ontario Legislature. Welcome.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome the family of Mr. Clifford George Pilkey attending today’s tribute: his son, Allan Pilkey, former MPP and cabinet minister; his daughter, Jackie Zaika; and his grandchildren, John Pilkey and Jane Pilkey. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for that pre-introduction.

The member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like to welcome page Sulin Fletcher’s father, Derek Fletcher, here in the gallery. On behalf of the member from Scarborough Southwest, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Grant Crack: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine, Beckie Codd-Downey, and wish her, on behalf of all the colleagues here, a wonderful happy birthday.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Today, we have, from St. Benedict Elementary School in Orangeville, two grade 8 classes joining us, including the 2016 Girls’ Government participants.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome Yvonne Laurent, who will be joining us today from the Workers Health and Safety Centre.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of my colleague the MPP from Eglinton–Lawrence, the great Mike Colle, I would like to welcome to the House the mother of page captain Nava Wu, Andrea Gershon, and her father, Rob Wu. Welcome to our Legislature.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the MPP for Halton, I want to welcome the family of page captain Alexandra Wu: her mother, Iris Bagchi-Wu; father, Christopher Wu; sisters Jacqueline and Katarina Wu; brother Nathan Wu; and aunt Kassandra Wu. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is a great pleasure to introduce in the Legislature, on behalf of the Ottawa caucus, some good friends of ours from the Élisabeth Bruyère centre: Amy Porteous and Dave Levac. Thank you—David Levac—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Daniel Levac.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Daniel Levac, sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve learned how to bilocate.

Further introductions?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being in here a little earlier. I would like to introduce family members of Halton’s Alexandra Wu, who is page captain today. I’d like to welcome to the House Iris Bagchi-Wu, Jacqueline Wu, Nathan Wu, Katarina Wu, Christopher Wu, Marion Wu and Kassandra Wu.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. It’s great to have you here.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would entertain the member from Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding late shows.

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

Member?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I move that, following completion of consideration of the private bills today, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed to have been made, and the late shows standing in the names of the members for Haldimand–Norfolk and Kitchener–Conestoga shall then be conducted, following which the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to be carried and shall adjourn the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Wilson moves that, following completion of consideration of the private bills today, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed to have been made—

Interjection: Dispense.

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

Carried? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in the west members’ gallery, we have the former MPP for Guelph in the 35th Parliament, Mr. Derek Fletcher. Welcome, Derek.

As is the custom, if you would please join me in welcoming, for our tribute, the family of the late Mr. Clifford George Pilkey, MPP for Oshawa during the 28th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his daughter, Jackie Zaika; his son, Allan Pilkey; and his grandson, John Pilkey, and granddaughter, Jane Pilkey.

Allan Pilkey served as the MPP for Oshawa, and a cabinet minister, during the 35th Parliament.

We welcome the family here today for the tribute.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery to help pay tribute is former Speaker of the House David Warner. Welcome, Mr. Speaker.

Clifford Pilkey

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader on a point of order.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Clifford George Pilkey, former member for Oshawa, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader seeks unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m deeply honoured to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Cliff Pilkey, who was a member of the Legislature of Ontario from 1967 to 1971.

I first met Cliff when he was the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. You know these things you see in front of us called microphones? Cliff Pilkey did not need a microphone, I assure you of that. No matter where he was, whether he was in a union hall, whether he was in the Ontario Legislature or whether he was out front addressing a group, Clifford had a booming voice, and he knew exactly what he was going to say.

What he brought to this Legislature was a background in the trade union movement, in the labour movement, which was well known. He started out, as many members of this House over the years have, in the labour movement as a committee man. It was called a “committee man” at that time. It would be a “committee person” at the present time. He made his way up to secretary-treasurer, and then president of Local 222 of what was known as the UAW back when he started out and then became the CAW over the years.

He was very prominent in the local labour movement as well, on the local labour council, but also provincially, as I mentioned, with the Ontario Federation of Labour, and also internationally, because he attended some international and national conferences, where he presented the viewpoint of those in the labour movement eloquently and with a good deal of force.

He was genuinely committed, and that was reflected when he was in the Legislature as the labour critic for the New Democratic Party at that time, with the government of Ontario looking at various pieces of legislation and what should be done. Cliff brought forward the point of view of labour very forcefully.

He was particularly interested, as we are on an ongoing basis, in people who are injured in industrial accidents. He campaigned locally, provincially and nationally for legislation, regulations and policies which would be designed to eliminate the risk, if possible, but certainly to significantly reduce the risk of accidents happening in the workplace. He saw the consequences of those accidents: the lives that were profoundly adversely affected by accidents that happen in the workplace, and sometimes fatalities—of course, that was devastating for the families—but also ongoing injuries which prevented people from leading the kinds of lives they would have liked to have led.

He was also looking for other changes to labour legislation because, if you recall a number of years back, labour legislation wasn’t as progressive as it is across the country today in terms of the reflection of the views of working people in the workplace and in our society.

When Cliff was a member of city council, which he was in the city of Oshawa, he again reflected those views and tried to do what he could at the local level, asking the council to advocate on behalf of those who were in the industrial base of Oshawa and who worked in various jobs there, but he was also committed to the community at large.

Certainly he saw that the union could play a role in conjunction with government, holding unemployed help centres, for instance, for people who were devastated when they lost their job, particularly for a long-term loss of job. Cliff knew that while it wasn’t the best of the worlds, it was good to have an unemployed help centre, and also a health and safety centre that the union would be operating—sometimes in conjunction with government; sometimes independently. That viewpoint had to be presented to this Legislature.

If you look back on the Legislature over the years, in years way back there were not that many people who came from the labour movement. In fact, they were mostly business people, lawyers and professionals. What Cliff brought was an unapologetic and enthusiastic approach to issues which affected people who were working on the line, people who were in various workplaces in the province of Ontario.

He was a person who was interesting to meet. He could be very forceful in debate, whether in this House or in some other venue. But he was also a person who, at the end of the debate, at the end of the discussion, at the end of the rally, could shake hands with people and be very cordial to people as well. He came across as very forceful, but there was a compassionate part to Cliff Pilkey that I think all of us who knew him in one way or other will remember.

His son, Allan, was a member of this Legislature as well. One quick story I will tell you will show you how committed he was to the trade union movement. Allan said that when he told stories to the family at night, when the kids were going to bed, instead of saying “once upon a time,” he would say “once upon a time-and-a-half,” which reflected his need for overtime to be paid appropriately.

We thank the family of Cliff Pilkey for being here today. The people of Oshawa appreciated his representation not only in this House, not only on their council, but in various organizations within the community and certainly in the trade union movement. He will stand out as an icon and a strong defender of labour throughout his lifetime—as he did—and well beyond the years in which he was on this earth.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m honoured today, on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, to pay tribute to the late Cliff Pilkey, who died at 90 years of age on November 17, 2012.

Cliff Pilkey was a genuinely passionate man whose early life forged his later political career. He was born into poverty. His mother was a chambermaid and his father a blacksmith. At 13 years old, Cliff dropped out of school to take a job on the boys’ line at General Motors in Oshawa. He was a line worker there in 1937, when Premier Mitch Hepburn sent a 400-unit militia to the Oshawa plant in an effort to break up a wildcat strike. The action failed, but surely that episode led Cliff to add to his young resumé and helped drive him to the political activism that followed.

Cliff Pilkey only served one term in the Legislature, from 1967 to 1971, but his was a lifetime of advocacy and achievement. In 1962, the Ontario Human Rights Code barred discrimination on the basis of colour, race, creed and national origin, but did not include gender. In 1969, a newly formed UAW Local 222 women’s committee approached their MPP, Cliff Pilkey, convincing him to present a bill outlawing discrimination in employment. A year and a half later, Bill 83,

An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Employment because of Sex or Marital Status, passed into law. This was followed by an amendment to the Human Rights Code in Ontario.

Cliff became president of the Ontario Federation of Labour in 1976 and remained with the organization for a decade. While there, he created six affirmative action seats on the Ontario Federation of Labour board and, in the mid-1980s, he established a position for that organization’s first full-time female officer.

He also led campaigns against racism, which ultimately led to a more inclusionary executive at the Ontario Federation of Labour. The slogan at the time was “Racism Hurts Everyone,” but Cliff Pilkey turned that phrase into action.

In 1985, Cliff founded the Workers Health and Safety Centre in Toronto. He was convinced that successful training could only be accomplished by workers for workers, free of government or employer influence.

Ed Broadbent, the former leader of the federal New Democratic Party, described Cliff as a “happy warrior.” He was never a down person, always standing at the front of issues and never leading from behind.

As confirmed by my friend Oshawa regional councillor Nester Pidwerbecki, at 5 foot 4, Cliff was short in stature, but when he spoke he spoke with passion, and he could bellow with the best. Speaker, if he was in the Legislature today, you’d have no difficulty isolating him during question period.

He was a mentor to Ed Broadbent, who described him as an intelligent man, deeply committed. Cliff told Mr. Broadbent at one time to stop boring people with academic rhetoric.

Cliff Pilkey was a principled individual, not driven by convention. At an Ontario Federation of Labour conference in the early 1980s, at a time when the labour movement was still an old boys’ club and when issues important to women were being marginalized, Cliff gave a great, impassioned monologue and discussion filled with passion on women’s issues. He was not afraid of controversy because he was never concerned about taking a position that matched his value system. Doing the convenient thing was not a driver for Cliff Pilkey; doing the right thing certainly was.

I recall meeting him only once, when the Michael Starr Building was opened on King Street in Oshawa. At that time, I was a civil servant with the Ontario Ministry of Revenue in the communications branch. That meeting with Cliff, although very brief, made a lasting impression on me.

Whatever one’s political beliefs, we could all learn a lot by studying the character and actions of this vibrant, caring and contributing leader. Thanks to his son and his family for sharing him with us and for the difference that Clifford George Pilkey made in the lives of thousands of people in this province. God rest his soul.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my honour to stand today and pay tribute to Clifford Pilkey on behalf of Ontario’s New Democrats. I would like to first welcome some of Cliff’s family to the Legislature. Welcome to his daughter, Jackie Zaika, his son and former NDP MPP and minister, Allan Pilkey, and his grandchildren, John and Jane Pilkey. And we know that family and friends are watching this morning in Oshawa and across the province.

As we have heard, Cliff leaves behind a legacy of powerful change, change that broke down barriers, that opened doors and invited people through; change that strengthened the labour movement and workers’ rights, that strengthened health and safety across the province and that challenged racism and long held-ideas about women’s rights.

Today, we will remember and start at the beginning. Viola Pilkey remembered those humble beginnings. Clifford George Pilkey was one of nine children and came from one of the poorest families in Oshawa. When he was young, his father would take him to Memorial Park in Oshawa, in the 1930s, when the Depression was on, and he listened to diverse ideas and opinions at a speaker’s corner, ideas that would no doubt influence his own thinking.

When the union came to Canada, Cliff was selling papers on the corner. He used to sell the Toronto Star at the Four Corners during the strike. Apparently, with his big, signature voice, he would sing to sell his papers. Cliff left school before the end of grade 9 and worked in the north plant on the boys’ line at General Motors. He worked until the war came, and then he served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1942 until the end of the war. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 43, in Oshawa for 62 years.

After the war, Cliff came back to work at General Motors and was involved in union leadership at Local 222. By 1957, he was the president of the Canadian UAW council and served for a decade as president of the Oshawa and District Labour Council. He was elected in 1962 as an Oshawa alderman and deputy mayor and, in 1967, was elected to the provincial Legislature. Cliff was elected to Queen’s Park and served as the MPP for Oshawa from 1967 to 1971. He ran against a Tory incumbent and won and started his very effective term here in this Legislature. He was the labour critic for the NDP and was successful in advancing workers’ rights and getting strong labour legislation through.

Cliff Pilkey was always known for having, as we’ve heard, a robust and booming voice. Stephen Lewis, who was then the leader of Ontario’s New Democrats, said that most members who needed to speak to their constituents would pick up the phone, but when Cliff Pilkey wanted to speak to his constituents in Oshawa, all he had to do was open a window in his Queen’s Park office and speak directly to them.

But Cliff’s voice was not only loud, it was strong and true. Cliff had a respect for others and they, a respect for him. He used to say of Bill Davis that they went to their respective corners and bashed the heck out of each other, but they did really get along. Bill Davis said that he and Cliff Pilkey respected one another, that they really did have fun together, even though Cliff was “philosophically challenged.”

After Queen’s Park, Cliff continued to represent the people of Oshawa and workers in Ontario. After another term as alderman, he served as president of the Ontario Federation of Labour from 1976 until he retired in 1986. In 1978, Cliff helped labour win the passage of Bill 70, Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. He knew that workers and workplace representatives would need comprehensive training after the passage of that bill. His strong leadership and advocacy resulted in a workers’ training centre known still as the Workers Health and Safety Centre, which continues to lead on health and safety issues.

The WHSC is a living tribute to his dedication to health and safety issues and his commitment to the workers of Ontario.

Cliff was also a powerful voice in championing women’s rights and human rights. In 1982, he made a legendary speech at an OFL convention full of union brothers who weren’t quite ready to see reproductive rights as a labour issue. He stood firmly behind his principles to support the women delegates. He was a real and sincere fighter for women’s rights. Cliff saw injustice and saw ways to challenge it. Also, under Cliff Pilkey’s leadership, for the first time in the Canadian labour movement, there was a comprehensive campaign against racism that engaged and challenged the broader public. Over 30 years later, we’re still undertaking this vital work. Cliff Pilkey’s legacy endures.

Since his passing, there have been some very special tributes: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association presented a special recognition award, Unifor named a change-maker bursary, and the OFL established the biennial Cliff Pilkey Awards dinner and labour activist award. The city of Oshawa named a 2.5-kilometre part of the Waterfront Trail with a plaque, in tribute to his service, contributions and achievements in the Oshawa community. Cliff was awarded the Canadian Centennial Medal in 1967, was inducted into the Order of Ontario in 1990, and was awarded the Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

There is an extensive public record of Cliff’s accomplishments and legacy, but I would like to thank the family who shared some special pieces and stories that can’t be found online. His character and life lessons clearly influenced both of his children, who have also pursued paths of service and have had a dynamic and measurable impact in their communities.

Cliff was a wonderful dad. He appreciated the simplicity of life and he never lived life “heavy.” He took life and its challenges seriously and could fight to the end with the best of them and worked to win—but at the end of the day, it’s life.

There were lessons to be learned, but there were always songs to sing. He was apparently a phenomenal singer. Even until he passed at the age of 90, he still found reasons to sing.

As Ed Broadbent recalled, “He was the ultimate happy warrior. No matter what the struggles were you never saw him down, he was a sort of up-at-’em kind of guy and always at the front of the parade, not at the back.”

He inspired and taught people to be activists, advocates, leaders and change-makers. He would say, “Don’t lose heart because your life and your efforts are at the embryo stage. Be strong and stay on course and let it grow and let it blossom. Stay true. Never lose heart.” Cliff Pilkey was not a man of few words but instead he was a man of powerful and resonant words.

Thank you to Cliff’s family and thank you to Cliff Pilkey for staying the course and making it broader, safer and fairer for everyone after. Ontario is better for the commitment and legacy of Cliff Pilkey.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to thank all members for their heartfelt and kind words in tribute to Cliff Pilkey.

We would also like to tell the family that, as a token of our esteem and our affection for Cliff, we will provide you with a copy of Hansard and a DVD to ensure that you have a keepsake of Cliff Pilkey. Thank you for the gift of your father.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Today, the Premier backpedalled on her reckless climate change plan. She now says she won’t ban natural gas. Yet every time we ask about changes to the building code, the Premier dodges and deflects. Now we’re hearing of the new net-zero carbon homes, which the Minister of the Environment can’t even define.

Mr. Speaker, it is practically impossible to heat your home without natural gas and be net zero on emissions, unless you live in the base of a wind turbine. Knowing that, will the Premier admit this is just Liberal spin on phasing out natural gas?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was very proud to be with our Minister of Energy, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Economic Development, and the Minister of Transportation today to announce and reveal the climate change action plan, to put more details into the public realm so that people can understand how we are going to tackle climate change.

On this side of the House, the discussion is not about whether we tackle climate change. That’s the discussion that’s being held on the other side of the House. On this side of the House, we are tackling climate change, and we’re doing it for now and for generations to come.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop.

Please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Ontario’s hydro rates are skyrocketing, forcing many families to turn to natural gas to heat their homes. The Premier’s solution to this? Just raise natural gas prices higher than electricity. Sure, you may be able to keep a natural gas stove or barbecue, but heating your home with natural gas will no longer be an option.

On top of that, the average net-zero home, according to Natural Resources Canada, can cost $150,000 more than the average home today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member from Scarborough North and the Minister of Energy, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Etobicoke North.

Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Obviously, the government doesn’t like it when facts get in the way of their spin. Natural Resources Canada says that a net-zero-energy home can cost $150,000 more.

My question to the Premier is, where does she expect homebuyers to find another $150,000?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition: Where does he expect any of us to find another planet to live on?

The reality is that we have got to tackle climate change. If he turns around and asks his colleague behind him—there was a group of grade 5 students from Chester public school at the announcement this morning. They’re all studying climate change, and they know that it is up to us to take action.

So it’s up to us to help homeowners and renters reduce their emissions, to use less energy and to save more money through home energy retrofits.

It’s up to us to help reduce pollution by investing in transit and electric vehicle incentives—that’s what our plan does—and to support businesses, industries and manufacturers to be competitive and to develop the technologies that are going to reduce their carbon—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Let’s recap. A new home: That’s now going to cost you $150,000 more. To heat that home, it’s going to cost you $3,000 more. But don’t worry, the Premier assures us these costs will lead to business growth in Ontario.

Well, Mr. Speaker, wrong again. The money generated from cap-and-trade will see businesses send—hear this—$300 million to California by 2020, and another $3 billion to California by 2030.

Why does the Premier want to make life more unaffordable for families and businesses in Ontario? Everyone in this House wants to combat climate change, but no one in Ontario supports a radical, ideologically driven approach.

Will you do the right thing and make Ontario more affordable?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and I were at a green building conference. There were construction companies, developers and builders from all around the world. There were companies from Europe, from the Caribbean, from the States—all over the world—because these are builders who have technologies ready, who are looking for jurisdictions where there’s a framework in place where they can build the kinds of efficient homes and buildings that they’re capable of building. They are very, very eager to do that work here in Ontario.

When the Leader of the Opposition talks about ideology, the ideology that we’re fighting in this Legislature is an ideology that says that climate change isn’t a problem; do nothing; don’t take action; don’t look at the costs of climate change; just sit on your hands.

That’s not what we’re going to do, Mr. Speaker. We’re moving forward—

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

New question.

School facilities

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on sending $3 billion to California, let’s talk about education.

A Ministry of Education document reads: “Ultimately, a school’s condition reflects the state of commitment of one generation to the advancement of the next.”

That sounds right, but if that’s true, this government isn’t making a very strong commitment to Ontario’s students. Across the province, schools have fallen into disrepair. In fact, Ontario has a capital repair backlog of $15 billion. What kind of commitment is that?

Mr. Speaker, how many more years will students have to learn and teachers have to teach in our crumbling schools? We must do better. Will the Premier commit to that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Education is going to want to comment, but I want to just assure the member opposite that we have been investing and we’ll continue to invest in school upgrades.

Since 2003, $13 billion has resulted in nearly 755 new schools and more than 720 additions and renovations around the province. The commitment going forward is $11 billion to help build new schools and to renovate.

That commitment is a real commitment. You can look at the record of the building and the renovation that we’ve done in order to measure the impact that we will have going forward—$11 billion over the next 10 years. We recognize that the condition of schools is very important. We’ll continue to make those investments.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chief government whip, come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: This government may believe that a $15-billion repair backlog is acceptable and justify it with their spin, but the reality is that the government isn’t doing enough.

Just listen to what the grassroots organization Fix Our Schools had to say: “Classrooms that are 10 degrees to 12 degrees in the winter are not an anomaly across the province.” And in the “spring and fall, on a third floor in an old building, it wouldn’t be uncommon to be in excess of 30 degrees—certainly not optimum learning conditions.” Ceiling tiles are mouldy and collapsing. That’s from this grassroots organization. Are these conditions that set our children up for success? Absolutely not. We need to have the proper schools.

The Premier can’t blame this on local school boards. She was the former Minister of Education. Why has the Premier turned a blind eye to the state of disrepair of far too many of Ontario’s schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to respond to this question. We currently are in a $1.25-billion program over three years to address school renewal and school repairs. In addition to that $1.25 billion that is specifically for school repairs—

Mr. John Yakabuski: So that’s less than 10% of the problem. And that doesn’t include the—

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: In addition to that money, we actually also have a $750-million school consolidation fund that helps school boards to maintain the schools that remain open after a round of school closures. They can actually renovate, build additions, replace or renew. We’ve had a massive investment in school safety and conditions.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Minister of Education brags that they have a $15-billion problem and they’re going to deal with 7% of it. How about all those students in those schools where there’s mould and disrepair?

Listen to what a student from Runnymede Public School had to say: “Some kids have to wear their winter coats in class while, for others, their classrooms are so hot it’s hard to learn. Our bathrooms don’t have locks so you can’t have privacy.” That’s from a student.

How can the Premier expect children to learn while they shiver and are forced to wear winter coats in the classroom? Will the Premier commit to dealing with the huge list, the backlog of $15 billion to fix our schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I must comment that if a hinge on a bathroom door needs fixing, then the caretaker should probably fix the hinge on the door.

You mentioned schools in Toronto, so let’s talk specifically about the Toronto District School Board. The school condition improvement allocation, which is based on average school condition in particular boards, has increased by four times. We’ve quadrupled the number from $29 million to $112 million. That’s a massive increase.

We have directed every school board in Ontario to use the proceeds of disposition when they sell one school site to pay for the renewal and repair of their remaining sites, which actually gives school boards a significant cash inflow that they have control over on their own.

Mercury poisoning

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The final report into the mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows was released publicly a week and a half ago. It says that high levels of mercury in Grassy Narrows’ Wabigoon River suggest there may be an ongoing source of mercury in the system. The government has had this report since April. Will the Premier tell Ontarians whether the government is aware of any sources of ongoing mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is going to want to comment. But I had the opportunity to attend the beginning of a meeting that the minister had with scientists from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and from his own ministry with the chief from Grassy Narrows. So I had the opportunity to meet with the chief and one of his colleagues.

We are very serious about looking at the recommendations in the report, making sure that we are doing everything in our power. I had an opportunity to talk to Chief Fobister and to say to him that when I went to Grassy Narrows and I talked to the scientists about the mercury that’s in the sediment in the lake and in the river, at that point there was no knowledge of increased mercury or ongoing mercury poisoning. If that is the case, we need to discover what that is and we need to look at whether there are ways that it can be cleaned up, as I said, without doing further damage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps the Premier can tell Ontarians, then, whether the government is actually monitoring the water in the Wabigoon River so they know definitively whether or not there is new mercury contamination in the Wabigoon River in Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: As the Premier said, yesterday afternoon, I and my assistant deputy minister, scientists from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change along with the minister himself, Minister Murray, met with Chief Fobister and one of his officials. We had an agenda of some five items. This mercury pollution issue was obviously one of those items on the agenda. As a result of that meeting, I have committed to going to Grassy Narrows on June 27. I will be accompanied by Minister Murray. We will also be accompanied by a number of Ontario scientists. Having spoken to the Minister of Health, Minister Hoskins, this morning—he is attempting to rearrange his

schedule so he can come to Grassy Narrows also.

We take this issue very seriously. That’s why the Premier and three ministers have met with the chief and will continue—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To date, this Premier has refused to accept all of the scientific evidence that shows that mercury in Grassy Narrows can be cleaned up. In the meantime, the people of Grassy Narrows and the children of Grassy Narrows First Nation continue to get sick and continue to worry.

It is time to accept the truth. It is time to begin some action on reconciliation. It has been decades. This government has been in power for over a decade. The question is: When will this Premier begin the cleanup of Grassy Narrows and the Wabigoon River?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. David Zimmer: Minister Murray.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The report—the very good report—we received talks about the need for an immediate field study, in addition to the ongoing monitoring that the scientists in the Ministry of the Environment have been doing both on fish and water.

Minister Zimmer, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and I met with the chief. We tabled a comprehensive 12-month plan for full field studies and to be able to determine how the mercury could be extracted without causing additional harm to people and to the environment. We agreed that the First Nations and Chief Fobister would make those decisions with the support of both ministries.

As Minister Zimmer said, we have a follow-up meeting with our team of scientists and we will be up there working under the leadership of the First Nations, providing them with all of the resources they need to properly act on and solve this problem, Mr. Speaker.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. For weeks, the Premier and her ministers have denied the crisis in health care instead of fixing it. Ontarians need health care that they can count on, not a press release, not a commercial that says everything is fine.

When will this Premier stop denying that Ontario’s hospitals need more than $3 billion in critical maintenance and get on with the job of fixing the hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We recognize that there needs to be continuing and ongoing investment in health care. That’s why there’s more than $1 billion in our most recent budget, including $345 million for hospitals. That’s why there’s an $11 billion—

Hon. Eric Hoskins: $12 billion.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —$12 billion in 10 years—sorry, I’m getting the 12 and 11 between education and health care, Mr. Speaker, because we’re investing in both health care and education. So the $12 billion over 10 years that we are investing in the bricks and mortar of hospitals—we fully recognize that those investments need to be made. That’s why we’ve made the commitment of the dollars.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Liberal government is in denial in terms of the mess that the health care system is in in this province. If you take your loved one to a hospital, you want to know that the medical professionals have the tools and the resources that they need to provide the care that they are trained to give.

I met a nurse on the weekend who told me that her hospital was so under-resourced that she was concerned for her licence and that the poor quality of care that she was forced to provide was causing her serious, serious mental anguish each and every day when she walked out the door after a shift. She actually had to quit her job to maintain her personal and professional integrity as a front-line nurse in a hospital.

When will this Premier stop denying that there is a crisis in health care and give front-line health care workers the resources that they need to provide the quality of care that they deserve to provide and that patients—

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

Premier?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that the leader of the third party met a nurse this weekend; she met her at the OPSEU offices in North Bay. She didn’t bother to walk down the road to the hospital and actually visit the hospital, see for herself, talk to the hospital administration, talk to the staff working there, a hospital that has made exceptional progress in improving the outcomes of Ontarians in that part of the province.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have, on so many different measures—if we look at the Conference Board of Canada’s 2015 health report, according to them, the health of Ontarians was not only viewed favourably among Canadian provinces, but it was evaluated by the Conference Board as the seventh best in the world, placing ahead of Japan, ahead of Germany, ahead of the United Kingdom and ahead of the United States.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think it is disgraceful that a minister of the crown, a minister of this government that pretends to be progressive, continues to use unionization in a pejorative fashion in this House. Shame on that Liberal government, shame on them.

Ontario’s hospitals undeniably need more than $3 billion in critical maintenance. I have met nurses who have been fired from hospitals and I have met hospital—

Interjections.

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

Please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have met hospital administrators, CEOs of hospitals, who have told me that they have been forced to close beds because of Liberal budget cuts. What this all comes down to is that patients who need care in hospitals are not getting the care that they need because hospitals are being cut.

Instead of denying this crisis in health care, when will this Premier step up to the plate and deal with the crisis that she has created?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Union representatives and their members know that this government has a deep and profound respect for them. We meet with them regularly. They help us develop positive and proactive policy decisions. But where I won’t have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, is when the leader of the third party claims that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —when the leader of the third party claims that 350 nurses and health care workers lost their jobs at North Bay hospital, when, in fact, since the amalgamation in 2011, there have only been 21 layoffs. Where I draw the line is where she claims that 1,400 nurses lost their jobs last year, when the truth is that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Leader of the third party, come to order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —over 3,000 net new jobs were created, according to the College of Nurses of Ontario —

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You need to extend the session, we’re having so much fun.

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

New question.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. This morning, the Auditor General tabled her special report on the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games. And despite the government’s claims, the Auditor General’s report confirmed that the Pan Am Games were neither on time nor were they on budget. In fact, the operating budget—it’s right here in black and white in the Auditor General’s report. The Ontario government contributed “significantly more” dollars; in fact, $304 million, or 61% more. She also highlighted that the bundling of capital projects “contributed to project delays and significant deficiencies.”

We all know, Speaker, that the Pan Am lucrative bonuses were all tied to showing up for work, but also, they were for “exceptional performance goals.”

They could have stopped this. They could have told them not to get this money. Why did this government look the other way?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to take this opportunity to first thank the Auditor General for the report, and I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

On the very first page of the report, the Auditor General states, “Ontarians can take pride in the fact that the 2015 Games went off without a major hitch.” She continues to say they “left a legacy of infrastructure for athletes and the general public to use, and led Canada to its biggest-ever haul of medals from a Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.”

These are high praises coming from the Auditor General. It doesn’t stop there. The AG states that the games were “praised for their smooth operations by the Pan American Sports Organization and the Americas Paralympic Committee.”

She also highlights how all three levels of government leveraged the games and highlighted that the games accelerated the West Don Lands by about 10 years. We are so proud of these games.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary, please.

Mr. Steve Clark: The report is pretty clear: 61% over—$304 million.

Speaker, back to the Premier: In September, I asked the minister to freeze the payment of all bonuses until the Auditor General finished her report. He answered by telling me these were the most transparent games in the history of the country. Despite the minister’s gloating, the auditor said she was unable to obtain answers to certain questions and could not obtain some documents she requested. The auditor wasn’t able to access all computer hard drives—hardly open and transparent for a government that has a shady history when it comes to hard drives.

What was the government hiding on these missing hard drives? Directives from the minister to not pay those lucrative Pan Am bonuses?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m proud of the legacy of the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games. The Auditor General speaks exactly about the highlights of this legacy for these games here in Ontario.

We increased the number of trained volunteers here in the province of Ontario. The Auditor General says, “Some 23,000 people served as trained volunteers for the games and a new volunteer website was introduced to link games volunteers to future volunteer opportunities” here in Ontario.

The AG talks about how we encouraged youth sport, stating that the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games Kids Program also helped “motivate children and youth to participate in sports at more than 4,250 sites.”

The AG states: “The games helped fund completion of a 250-kilometre stretch of the Trans Canada Trail here in Ontario, which provides a continuous trail from Windsor to Ottawa, and from Fort Erie to North Bay.”

Mr. Speaker, it’s only the Progressive Conservatives, from the very beginning, who didn’t understand the power of these games. We are proud—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change: Today the government finally released its climate change plan. The plan is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The plan is long overdue and much needed. But for this plan to sustain public support, it needs to be fair, effective and transparent.

Low-income, rural and northern communities face a disproportionate burden. Climate change action will cost them more of their income than other Ontarians. They will need some extra help, but when you look at the percentage of total spending, this plan offers very little support for these communities.

Why does this action plan offer so little support to low-income, rural and northern communities?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member not only for his question, but for the very hard work he did on the bill. Nothing makes an environment minister happier than when the critic says we should do more.

There is over $1 billion of support for affordable housing and apartments and for single-family homes. In the north, this will be particularly powerful. As the Minister of Energy said earlier today, the savings, I believe, are in the range of $800 to $1,300 per home for rural and northerners through the types of programs that are available to them.

We recognize that northerners don’t have some of the choices that people in the south and large cities do, so we are putting disproportionately more money into those programs where the highest cost levels are and where things like transit and energy choices are more limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The NDP proposed that Ontario follow California’s example by dedicating at least 25%—25%, Minister—of cap-and-trade funds to programs that directly benefit low-income, rural and northern communities, which are facing a disproportionate burden. Notwithstanding what you’ve said, Minister, we don’t see that 25% allocation. The government rejected our proposal.

Instead, out of the $8.3 billion the minister wants to spend, northerners will get just $1 million to $4 million to replace their wood stoves. It’s the only explicit commitment to the north.

How can the minister sustain public support for his climate change action plan when he won’t address the unfair burdens carried by low-income, rural and northern households?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I appreciate the question, again.

The member is reading from page 67 of the plan, which is a dedicated program—he’s right—that recognizes wood stoves. Right above it, it says that for all Ontarians, because we’re one Ontario, there’s $500 million to $600 million for home retrofits and energy systems. Right underneath it, for near net-zero carbon incentive rebates, there’s another $180 million to $220 million.

I would suggest, since the low-income lens, unlike California, doesn’t apply to a group of expenditures, that we have to demonstrate across all of our expenditures that we’ve met the equity test, that all monies can be applied in these situations.

Northerners are eligible for all of this money. We’re working with rural municipalities in the north, and we’ll be working with municipalities to support existing municipal programs and add to those.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Many people in northern Ontario and in my riding of Sudbury are involved in the mining and mining exploration industry. Companies conducting mineral exploration are part of an important early step in the mining cycle, and it is critical to the success of the mining industry that the government support their development.

Last month, I asked the minister about the Junior Exploration Assistance Program and what this government is doing to support Ontario’s mining industry. I understand that, recently, the first round of the JEAP program closed and funding has been announced. Can the minister please update this House on the progress of the Junior Exploration Assistance Program and how the government is supporting mineral exploration in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the member for Sudbury for that question. As always, I appreciate his great commitment to Ontario’s mining industry.

Certainly, all members of our government understand that the mineral sector is vital to our economy and to our future prosperity. That is why, in December, we announced an investment of $5 million through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. to support this new Junior Exploration Assistance Program, or JEAP, delivered by the Ontario Prospectors Association, to aid junior exploration companies to conduct or plan exploration work in northern Ontario. We knew it was timely to support this.

Following the first round of applications, I was pleased to announce that we are supporting 32 projects from 25 different companies for an investment of $2.7 million, something that was very welcome from all the junior exploration companies.

May I also say that the Ontario Prospectors Association has announced that a second round of applications is now in the works. It began May 30 and goes to the end of August.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the minister for that answer. I know that it’s encouraging to see this government actively supporting the mining and exploration industry in Ontario. As the minister knows and mentioned, the mining industry in Ontario supports 26,000 direct jobs and over 50,000 indirect jobs. It is important to note that it is the largest private sector employer of indigenous peoples in Canada.

I understand that, in addition to supporting the mineral exploration companies and projects, the Junior Exploration Assistance Program and the Ontario Prospectors Association are providing resources for members of the public and indigenous people who are interested in becoming prospectors. Can the minister please tell us more about the prospectors’ training program and how this will help grow the prospecting industry in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That’s a great question.

We need more prospectors in the province of Ontario. Later this summer, the Ontario Prospectors Association will be engaging in this new, exciting initiative aimed at training new prospectors across northern Ontario. We’re working in partnership, again, with the OPA to deliver five-day prospecting training courses to members of the public interested in learning more about prospecting and possibly becoming prospectors.

This supports our government’s Mineral Development Strategy and its commitment to educate, to recruit and to retain a highly skilled exploration workforce in Ontario. They’ll be working with geoscientists from the Ontario Geological Survey. Trainees will develop such skills as rock and mineral identification and geological map reading. They’ll also learn about what government programs are available to assist in their prospecting endeavours.

Together with initiatives like this and the JEAP program that we talked about earlier, we’re going to be supporting a mineral sector that’s healthy, innovative and sustainable—

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

New question.

Special-needs students

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, two days before most parents and kids were notified of the consultation process that was beginning for provincial and demonstration schools, the government held a secret meeting about the future of the demonstration schools.

I’ve got a few questions for the minister this morning. Can the minister confirm if such a meeting was held on February 21: yes or no? Was the only agenda item for that meeting “an exit strategy to close demonstration schools in June 2017”: yes or no? And if those were both things that did happen, why would this government spend $1.8 million on a consultation process when, really, the decisions had already been made to close these schools in June 2017?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The reason we would have a consultation process is, obviously, that no decisions were made. We went out to consult. We recognized, obviously, that there are some issues around enrolment in our schools for the deaf, in some cases. We realize there are issues around the number of children with severe learning disabilities who can be served by demonstration schools in the way that they’re presently offered. There are actually only 160 children per year who can receive the programming, all across Ontario, that’s offered for severe learning disabilities in demonstration schools.

But were any decisions made prior to the consultations? Absolutely not. That’s why we had consultations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, back to the minister: This government’s plan—or lack of plan, I guess—has caused chaos for these students, and it has caused chaos for the parents. It has caused chaos for the employees. That’s why they’re rallying again today outside the schools in Belleville, Milton, London and Ottawa, at these provincial schools.

The freeze on school enrolment during the consultation has forced these parents into limbo. They won’t know until June 24 whether their children will be accepted into a demonstration school. As a result, they’re unable to tell their home school boards whether they’ll have to deal with a student with a learning disability. Now we have kids with severe learning disabilities who don’t know where they’re going to go to school next year, and the schools, which are cutting millions of dollars in special education programming, don’t have a place for them either.

If the Premier doesn’t fire this minister next week, she’s doing all students in the province a disservice.

Speaker, does the minister think it’s appropriate that the students who need the education system most should have to guess about where they’re going to school next year?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As the member knows perfectly well, the application process for students who wish to attend a demonstration school is ongoing. There is an application process for students who wish to attend demonstration schools, every year. As I just mentioned, there are 160 places for students in demonstration schools throughout the province, at the four demonstration schools, so there’s an application process every year where students don’t know until the spring whether or not they will be one of the students who have been accepted.

My concern is that we have students all across Ontario with severe learning disabilities who actually don’t have the sophisticated programs available that are available at the demonstration schools. We don’t think that you should have to apply—

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

New question.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. This morning, as you know, the Auditor General revealed that the Pan Am Games went shockingly over budget. Ontario’s original budget for the games was $500 million. The cost so far is $804 million and climbing. That’s 61% over budget. This is almost at the eHealth and Ornge levels of waste. Yet seven months ago, the minister stood up and had the audacity to claim that the Pan Am Games had come in under budget.

Enough is enough. We can’t trust even simple arithmetic with this government. What is the Premier going to do to hold people accountable for wasting $300 million-plus of provincial money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member for the question.

In 2009, there was a bid book. The bid book had $2.42 billion for the games, the entire amount. It was $47 million under budget by the time we reported in our last technical briefing.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General highlights that the games were so successful that public attention to the games also grew as the number of Canadian medals continued to be won.

The CBC, which broadcast the games in Canada, expanded its television coverage three times to respond to this demand. That wasn’t once or twice, but three times. That’s because these games were the most successful Pan Am/Parapan Am Games in the history of these games.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: If I inflate the prices originally, I can come under budget, too.

The incompetence is incredible—the incompetence. Let me quote—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Let me quote the report on the other funding partners for the Pan Am Games: “The federal government, the municipalities, and the universities in total contributed 96% of their 2009 commitment....”

So everyone else came under budget. But the government went 61% over budget. How can the Premier possibly excuse this? And to make matters worse—this is the pièce de résistance—the TO2015 board decided last August to award full executive bonuses, despite the interim figures not being in and despite being fully aware that it had gone over the opera

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2016-06-08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p41 s1 2016-06-08 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6d8a3f010ac01d1159f4314522587b5be47db87c

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).