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

March 23, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-23 (PDF)

L058 - Mon 23 Mar 2015 / Lun 23 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 23 March 2015 Lundi 23 mars 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Housing Services Corp.

Government’s agenda

Government’s agenda

Driver licences

By-election in Sudbury

Government assets

Hydro One

Nurses

Rail safety

Pan Am Games

Education funding

Toronto District School Board

Doctor shortage

Rail safety

Municipal infrastructure

Visitor

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Chatham Memorial Arena

Co-op programs

The Speaker

Paddyfest

Indian independence movement

Mental health services

Anatolian Heritage Federation

Community skate

Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre / Centre de naissance et de bien-être d’Ottawa

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario

731149 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

Motions

Committee report

Committee membership

Petitions

Alzheimer’s disease

Employment standards

Off-road vehicles

First responders

Credit unions

Health care funding

Social assistance

Water fluoridation

Taxation

Gasoline prices

Credit unions

Winter road maintenance

Municipalities

Health care

Orders of the Day

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Tanisha Martinez, who is joining us here today at the Legislature. There she is. She is one of our first torchbearers selected here in the province of Ontario. She was selected because of her bravery: She actually helped save the life of a man who was under some trauma back in 2013; she provided assistance. It’s a pleasure to have her here and a pleasure to have her participate as a torchbearer in the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We have some new pages today. The very first page captain is Marin Papulkas, and her father has joined us today. Please welcome Thomas Papulkas to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m delighted to introduce Sam Salloum, father of Chris Salloum, my outstanding legislative assistant. He’s here from Edmonton, Alberta. Welcome.

Mr. John Vanthof: Our page captain today is Jessie Meanwell. I’d like to introduce Jessie’s mother, Frances Cockburn; Jessie’s father, Charles Meanwell; and Jessie’s aunt, Lynn Cockburn. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming Mr. Saadettin Ozcan, president of the Anatolian Heritage Federation; Mr. Ahmet Tamirci, vice-president of the Anatolian Heritage Federation; as well as Mr. Mehmet Durmus, the CEO of the Turkish Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The federation is having their annual event here at the committee room. Please welcome them.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Ric Randmaa, father of page captain Luc Randmaa. He is in our public gallery.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to welcome Mr. Robin Singh, who is joining us in the public gallery today. He is the father of page Japneet Kaur.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome, from Ottawa South, page Joe Fast.

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

On a point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I wanted to bring to the attention of the House the crushing defeat of the Toronto Maple Leafs at the hands of my Ottawa Senators this past Saturday in what is known annually as the battle of Ontario. I wanted all members, particularly those from Toronto, to hear about that crushing defeat on Saturday night.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I’d like to thank the member for Nepean–Carleton for starting the heckling before question period.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. On March 9, the public became aware of the RCMP investigation into senior officials of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. A mere six days later, Commissioner Hawkes announced the officers under investigation were suspended.

On December 15, the public learned of the alleged bribery in the Sudbury by-election, and here we are, 92 days later, and you, Premier, have yet to hold anyone to account. Premier, will today be the day you show some integrity and ask for Pat Sorbara’s resignation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, welcome back. As I was saying, the situations are very different. I think the interim leader of the opposition knows that. The investigation into the OPPA arose out of an internal complaint and investigation within their organization. The Sudbury investigation arose out of allegations from the opposition.

I can’t comment on the OPPA’s internal review, Mr. Speaker, the facts which led to their decision. The fact is that there is an investigation going on in the Sudbury situation. That investigation is happening outside of this Legislature, and we’re going to let it unfold as it should, outside the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: With the OPP officers under investigation suspended from duty and fired or removed from their positions, they are, Premier, physically removed from the OPPA offices which are the focus of the investigation. This action removes any doubt as to the integrity of the investigation.

Premier, for three months you have allowed your deputy chief of staff access to every shred of evidence pertaining to the Sudbury by-election and the OPP’s bribery investigation. Why won’t you hold yourself to the same standard of integrity as the OPP commissioner?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, as I’ve said, I can’t comment on the OPPA’s internal review of the facts that led to their decision. But what I can say is they are very different situations. The one was an internal complaint within the organization. The situation in Sudbury is an allegation by an opposition party.

The fact is, there is an investigation going on. I’ve been very clear about my actions. I made a public statement. I’ve answered questions repeatedly. There is an investigation going on. We will work with the authorities, but we’ll work with the authorities outside of this House, which is where the investigation is taking place.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: The commissioner of the OPP and the board of the OPPA have done the right thing. They’ve made the decision to remove the officers, seal the evidence and allow the RCMP to have an arm’s-length proper investigation. They’ve restored some integrity back into their system and into our system of justice. They’ve not acted as their own judge or jury. They’ve not acted above the law. They simply did the right thing while the investigation unfolds.

It’s a standard that Ontarians have a right to expect of you and the office you hold: to do the right thing, the honourable thing. Premier, what is it going to take for you to hold anyone in your office to account for the actions they have done?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said in this House many times, I take this situation very seriously. The investigation is independent of government. The only statement that has been made by an organization, Elections Ontario—I’ve said this many times; I’ve quoted this many times in the House, but I will do it again, Mr. Speaker. The Chief Electoral Officer clearly stated, and I’m quoting: “I’m neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

Those decisions will not be made in this House, Mr. Speaker. Those decisions will be made as a result of the investigation and whatever process thereafter, and that’s all happening outside of this Legislature.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. When you were Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, you would have received the social Housing Services Corp.’s 2010 financial statement. The HSC makes their money by marking up the cost of natural gas and insurance for housing providers. They are supposed to be part of helping the most vulnerable people in our society. The financial statement showed that HSC had invested Ontario social housing dollars in a company called HS 497 Ltd. Can you tell me who HS 497 Ltd. is and where they are located?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be very clear: I share the honourable member’s concern about expenditures. Where we differ, I suppose, is how you respond to that. It was the honourable member’s government that put in place the Housing Services Corp. without the accountability mechanisms necessary. We, of course, in government, changed that and, as a result of that, were able to spot some difficulties and respond to them.

In terms of that—the specifics—the Housing Services board has agreed to operate under the expense regime of cabinet and Treasury Board. They’ve also asked us to work with them to bring in a third party to evaluate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: I’m not surprised that the minister was unable to answer, because it was during the time that you were Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I just want to say that we found out through documents that are available—and I think you should have read that report—that HS 497 Ltd. is not even in this country. Under your watch, the HSC invested Ontario affordable housing dollars in a company located in Manchester, England. There’s no evidence that Ontario got a single dollar back, and HS 497 has been dissolved.

Premier, this isn’t the only questionable deal. HSC loaned over a million dollars to Innoserv Solar. Most of the loans were written off as uncollectible in the same year they were given. Innoserv is now dissolved, too, so another million dollars of affordable housing money is gone. Your review isn’t even looking for this money. Will you ask the auditor to review this?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member’s comments support what I’m saying: There are some changes that are happening at the Housing Services Corp.

Let me just say this: One of my favourite philosophers—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Who’s going to jail?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. That’ll do.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You have friends?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’ll do.

Start the clock.

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Most of my friends would agree with this philosopher who said that the needs of the many must supersede the needs of the few or the needs of the one.

This corporation was set up—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Just continuing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The concept of pooling efforts—which was one thing the party opposite, when they were in government, got right—is something that we continue to maintain so that the benefits can accrue to all municipalities, including small municipalities like the one the honourable member is from.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Back to the Premier: Premier, your so-called accountability measures aren’t working. In 2013, Housing Services Corp. advanced $125,000 to a for-profit company that they formed with yet another British organization. Since then, the HSC CEO has spent thousands and thousands of affordable housing dollars travelling across Canada—and to Europe—pedalling that for-profit company.

There is a pattern of affordable housing dollars being funnelled into for-profit companies. It’s Ornge 2.0. Premier, can you explain to the 165,000 families waiting for affordable housing how this is helping them? If not, will you call the auditor today to investigate?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As I stated earlier, I thought quite clearly, there is a third-party independent review of the entire operation of the Housing Services Corp., and the operations of all their subsidiaries. That’s a prudent step and it’s one that the Housing Services Corp., which is an independent, non-profit corporation separate from government, requested us to help—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —and we are delighted to do so. We’ll be proceeding with that review, and that review will guide us on any further steps that may need to be taken.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the Premier is slashing services because Liberal scandal and incompetence has left the Premier scrambling to pay the bills. Does the Premier think the way to pay for Liberal waste is to close child care centres, slash half a billion out of education and close neighbourhood schools all across our province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to assume that this is the beginning of the NDP’s attack on a budget that they have not read, that they have not seen yet, the assumptions underlying which they ran on.

The fact is we are investing in people—we have been doing that; we will continue to do that—investing in their talent and skills. We are investing in infrastructure, and by that I mean the roads and bridges across this province; I mean the transit that is needed. We are making those investments in order to allow our economy to continue to recover and to thrive.

We are setting up a retirement security plan that is going to allow people in this province to be more secure in their retirement. We are creating a dynamic business climate that allows private business to do what they do best, and that is create the jobs that we know we need in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Does the Premier think that the best way to keep funding Liberal waste and scandals is for the Liberal government to fire nurses in Sudbury, Timmins, Quinte, Leamington or Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since that’s not what we’re doing, I would challenge the premise of the question because we continue to make investments in those very services that are needed in all of those communities. We’re going to do that with a budget that is based on an elimination of the deficit by 2017-18.

This fantasy or this myth that the NDP wants to propagate that somehow we are not making those investments and somehow we are not supporting the services that people need is just not the case. That is the plan we brought in in our last budget. That’s the plan that we are executing and that is the plan that we will continue to implement when we bring our budget forward this spring.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: That’s exactly what we’re afraid of: the last budget being repeated. Ontarians have seen first-hand that privatizing hydro generation and deregulation in the late 1990s and early 2000s has shot our bills through the roof, and even Liberals said that privatizing the 407 was a complete disaster.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Now the Premier is planning to privatize even more hydro assets that Ontarians own. Does the Premier really believe that a fire sale today is the solution to a problem created by a fire sale 15 years ago and compounded by 10 years of Liberal incompetence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to be clear because this is a very important gambit and it’s going to come up over and over and over again. Let me be clear: I have said and we have said clearly that we are going to invest in transit and transportation infrastructure across this province. That is a commitment and we are going to remain true to that.

Having said that, we ran on a plan that would review the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario. We ran on that plan, Mr. Speaker, and they ran on that plan. They ran on the same assumptions that we ran on. That was part of their platform. We are doing that review.

Now the third party has said, “We don’t think there should be any change in the LCBO or in the Beer Store. We don’t think there should be any change in Hydro One.” Basically what they’re saying is, “We don’t think you should invest in transit because we don’t think anything should ever change.” Well, that’s not our position.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Back to the Premier: Last year, right around this time, the Premier was insisting that she had introduced the most progressive budget since the dawn of time, but a year later—

Applause.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: —curb your enthusiasm—schools are being cut, nurses are being fired, child care centres are being closed and the Liberals are beating the drum of privatization. All the while, she’s opening new loopholes for the wealthiest corporations in the province while everyone else picks up the tab for more than a decade of Liberal waste and corruption.

Premier, can we expect a rerun of last year with claims of a progressive budget while we experience what Bloomberg called the “biggest ... cuts since Harris”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are 24,000 more nurses practising in Ontario than there were when we came into office. On top of that, let me just say that the plan that makes sense, that this member ran on in the election, was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would caution the member to not hold anything up. Thank you.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That is just the document that the third party ran on, and they ran on it using exactly the same financial and fiscal assumptions that we made, except that they said they were going to find $600 million more.

They said, on page 2, “We will balance Ontario’s books by 2017-18 with significantly more fiscal space than the Liberal plan.” That was their plan: to find $600 million more, in addition to everything that we were doing, including reviewing assets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Premier can claim that she has another progressive plan, but here are the facts: education—half a billion in cuts; health care—nurses being fired across the province; child care—18 centres facing cuts and parents losing child care spaces; public services—fire sale.

Who’s getting help? The wealthiest companies in Ontario are getting brand new HST handouts while families have to deal with cut after cut, all because of more than a decade of Liberal waste and corruption and scandal. Can we expect more of the same in this budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What you can expect is exactly that we will continue to invest in health care, that we will continue to invest in education. In fact, those budgets are going up this year; they’re not going down.

The member opposite simply will have to read the budget when it comes out and understand that the investments that we are making in home care, in our children’s education and in our young people’s job opportunities—those are the things that will set us up for the future, including the investments in transit and transportation infrastructure that they apparently do not think that we should be making. All of that will be part of our budget.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Ontario can’t cut its way to prosperity, but instead of laying the groundwork for growth, the Premier is cutting education. She’s firing nurses and she’s cutting child care so moms and dads can’t afford to go to work. She’s even planning to privatize hydro assets that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves took off the chopping block. The Premier is spinning—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: —from the left, governing from the right and—

Hon. Liz Sandals: You have a really weird definition of cut.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. As I was asking her to come to order, she continued speaking. The Minister of Education, come to order.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Premier, you’re spinning from the left, governing from the right and destroying the middle class.

Will this budget mean more cuts, more corporate giveaways and more Liberal corruption? Or will the Premier commit to stopping her cuts and finally putting people first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Our plan is about putting people first. It’s about making the investments that people need. It’s about making investments in transit that will help people get home to their kids and get to work in better time.

Our plan is about making the investments in roads and bridges in counties and municipalities around this province that are needed by those municipalities in order to draw business. Our plan is about making sure that young people have the opportunity to have work experience so that they can get into the jobs that are going to allow them to have that lifestyle in the future, that will allow them to look after their families. That’s what our plan is about and that is, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the plan that we ran on. It’s the budget that we introduced last year and this year’s—

Hon. Charles Sousa: Twice.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Twice—we introduced last year’s budget twice. This year’s budget will be an exact extension of that plan.

Driver licences

Mr. Michael Harris: I’ve got a question to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, how long does it take your ministry to review and respond to a medical suspension of a driver’s licence?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I do thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for that question. I’m delighted to hear a question coming from a member on that side of the House on an issue that I know is important not only to that member but, of course, to many members. This is something that comes up from time to time in many constituency offices, including my own.

That member would have heard me say on multiple occasions—I say it all the time—that road and highway safety is perhaps my most important responsibility as Minister of Transportation. In responses or answers to media last week, I talked a lot about that when this kind of question came up.

What I know is that our Ministry of Transportation is currently meeting or exceeding our public service guarantee with respect to evaluating medical data related to driver’s licence suspensions in a responsible amount of time so that drivers are back on the road as soon as possible while ensuring that ultimately our roads remain safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, for you to say your ministry is exceeding the guarantees for MTO medical evaluations confirms you have absolutely no idea what’s going on in your own ministry.

You tell us that you will review cases and take action within 30 business days. The truth is, for many, it’s taking double that time or more. Every MPP here can tell you about the frustrated motorists putting lives and livelihoods on hold while awaiting medical review. It’s great that substitute teacher David Wallace got his licence back after going to Global News last week, but what about the tens of thousands of others still waiting? Do they all have to go on Focus Ontario to get you to act?

Minister, Mr. Wallace finally has his licence—

Applause.

Mr. Michael Harris: Thank you for that—thousands more are waiting for an answer. Will you commit to hard deadlines today and fix this broken system?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: The member opposite knows this is a very important question and something the Ministry of Transportation takes very, very seriously. He mentioned in his second question that we do have a 30-business-day window, which we work hard to respond to. What the member didn’t say—and he knows full well that I can’t respond to specific anecdotal circumstances or cases that he may bring forward here in the Legislature. But it’s important for us to recognize that from time to time there’s a requirement for additional documentation, for additional information from doctors to make sure that we get it right.

There are literally thousands and thousands of individuals who have to go through this process on an annual basis, and I’m pretty sure that member and people living in his community wouldn’t want the Ministry of Transportation to get it wrong because I know they share our desire to make sure that our roads and highways remain as safe as they are.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. It’s been three and a half months since both Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed were caught on tape offering what the OPP and Elections Ontario have called a bribe to Andrew Olivier to get him not to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You finally, after a month of stalling, decided that you’d finally found time to meet with the Ontario Provincial Police, and that time is a month from now. I’m not so sure anybody else in Ontario would be able to say, “Hold off, OPP,” for two months, but you get the chance to do that.

My question is this: What has the Premier done to make sure to turn over all of the emails and documents to the OPP as part of this investigation? Have you given them all your emails and all your correspondence dealing with the Olivier situation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to repeat what I said last week about the timing of the interview. I will also repeat what I’ve said in this House many times, which is that the entire investigation is taking place outside of the Legislature, not in this Legislature.

The timing of my interview has been determined by the OPP and my legal counsel, Mr. Speaker. They have been working to find a mutually convenient date. They have also agreed that because there’s an ongoing investigation, the dates and times of interviews will not be made public. This is a normal protocol in the context of an ongoing investigation. The OPP and my counsel have agreed on a date for my interview, to be conducted before the end of April.

As I’ve said, my office and I will continue to co-operate fully with the OPP in that investigation that’s taking place outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My supplementary is back to the Premier. What is not ordinary is that if somebody comes and knocks at the door of any citizen in this province, and the OPP says, “I want to meet with you as part of an investigation to a crime,” guess what? You don’t get to put it off for a month. You don’t get to say it’s going to happen next month. You do it right away. But this Premier has decided, for some reason or other, that she should be treated differently.

We saw what happened to the OPPA. Those particular officers, when they became the subject of an investigation, themselves decided to step aside. Why is it that you, as the Premier, feel that you’re so above the law that you can push off, for two months, meeting with the OPP, and somebody who broke the law is able to keep their jobs, by the name of Mr. Lougheed and Mrs. Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth in terms of my co-operation with the OPP. I’ve been very clear that we’ve been working closely with the OPP.

In terms of, in this House, calling people criminals, I think it’s beyond the pale. I don’t think it should happen. I think that the member opposite should withdraw what he has said, but that is my opinion.

I have been very clear that I’m working with the authorities and will continue to do so.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

New question.

Government assets

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is to the Minister of Finance. There have been several media reports that the Ontario government will be allowing the sale of beer in grocery stores. In my own riding of Cambridge, not only have I had some constituents contact my office about these reports, but it has been the talk at hockey games, at restaurants and neighbour get-togethers.

It’s no secret that the people of Ontario have been asking for more choice and convenience when purchasing alcohol. In my riding of Cambridge, we have a thriving local craft brewer in Grand River Brewing. Many of my constituents have told me that they are hopeful that local craft beers such as these will become more widely available.

Speaker, through you to the minister, are these reports true? And can the minister confirm that this is in the plans for the 2015 budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I do appreciate the question from the member from Cambridge. First of all, let’s be clear: It’s premature at this point to suggest that any decisions have been made about alcohol distribution in Ontario. Those discussions will be revealed in the 2015 budget.

The distribution and selling of alcohol responsibly is a public trust that this government takes seriously. We have been open about people’s concerns around fairness of the Beer Store and the opportunity to improve customer convenience by ensuring there’s a wide range of brands, including craft brew.

In so doing, the advisory council will be guided by three principles. The first is that the public interest must remain paramount and protected. The second is that any discussions taken must align with maximizing value to Ontario. Finally, and the most important, is that the process remains transparent, professional and independently validated.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Minister. I know the people of Ontario will be waiting eagerly for the 2015 budget.

However, I do have another question for the minister. There has been a lot of talk about the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets, led by Mr. Ed Clark. Unfortunately, some of that talk has been in the form of fearmongering by those who would, for their own benefit, seek to stop the government from maximizing the full value of the assets it owns to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Speaker, through you, can the Minister of Finance tell us more about the council and their work?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, I appreciate the question.

As mentioned earlier, the Premier has asked Mr. Clark and the advisory council to ensure that their work be guided by those three important principles that I just mentioned.

Now that we’ve discussed the how, let’s discuss the why. The review of the assets is important. The value is to unlock those assets by optimizing their value and to use them afterwards, investing them in key infrastructure priorities, that way improving people’s quality of life and maximizing opportunities for the people of Ontario, as well as becoming more competitive. Every dollar realized from unlocking our assets will go into the Trillium Trust and then will be reinvested in important infrastructure needs. This will include building highways, bridges and public transit.

This has always been and will continue to be about maximizing the value of our assets—your assets in the end—and reinvesting them in a way that benefits the people of Ontario.

Hydro One

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Ombudsman André Marin has received over 10,000 complaints about Hydro One, the most ever received regarding any one organization. If the skyrocketing cost of hydro wasn’t already tough for customers to swallow, it has now been a year since the investigation into billing practices at Hydro One was launched, yet customers are still dealing with erratic overbilling and empty threats to shut off power in the coldest months.

Minister, since you didn’t apologize to the people of Ontario for wasting $2 billion on smart meters, will you take the high road today and apologize for the predatory actions of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member refers to the Ombudsman’s investigation with respect to Hydro One. He has been doing a very comprehensive investigation. In the course of that, he’s had about 10,000 complaints. He’s referred 3,400 of them to Hydro One for resolution. Of those that the Ombudsman has referred for resolution, 99% of those have been met.

With respect to the disconnections, I’ll deal with that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I see first-hand the struggle that my constituents face trying to pay their hydro bills and deal with Hydro One. A staff member in my constituency office solely deals with helping residents of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock with their Hydro One complaints. Minister, that’s almost 40 hours a week cleaning up your mess.

The Ombudsman said that his upcoming report on hydro billing won’t come with a bouquet of flowers. Minister, will it come with your walking papers, or is hydro too complex for the Ombudsman too?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There are a significant number of people in our community who have been having trouble with their hydro bills. We’ve come through the two worst winters in recent history. Hydro One has a policy of not disconnecting during the winter months, and they have been following that.

There has been some controversy over a particular letter that is being sent to people who are in a position where they could be cut off. Hydro One and the Ombudsman are working together to agree on a letter that would be more acceptable to the Ombudsman. They’re working co-operatively.

Nurses

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

During the last general election, the Premier and her Minister of Health said that they would not cut front-line care and that they would not cut nursing positions. Right now, hospitals are laying off nurses almost every single day. Last week alone, we learned that Sudbury will lose 42 nurses, and the week before that the children’s hospital of Ottawa is cutting 50 registered nurses, and in Cambridge, it’s 22 registered nurses.

We all know that it is patients who will pay the price of these nursing cuts. Minister, how many more nurses will lose their jobs and how many patients will suffer before the Liberals stop these painful cuts to our front-line nurses?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite is a fellow health care professional. I know she understands that as hospitals and other facilities evolve, change and add and subtract programs to better serve their constituents or their catchment area, often that requires a change in the complexion of health service providers who are there. Sometimes individuals are let go or laid off; others are hired. There’s an ebb and flow that takes place regularly, and she knows this well, being a health care practitioner.

But the reality is that in the last decade roughly—that’s since 2003—there are more nurses working in this province. There are 24,000 more nurses working in this province. In fact, we added 3,500 nurses in 2013 and we continue to add nurses. Importantly, the percentage of those nurses who are working full-time has gone up significantly over the past decade as well.

We’re making improvements. I understand that she wants to try to score some political points, but she should understand, being a health care worker, what the reality is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, it is the patients across this entire province who pay the price for the Liberal cuts to front-line care, cuts that we were told during the last election would not happen. But it is happening, Speaker. Cutting 50 nurses at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario will leave sick kids with less care. Seventy-five positions are being eliminated in North Bay hospital. In Sarnia, it’s 39 nurses who are being cut, and nearly 40 positions will be lost in Timmins.

Every family understands that fewer nurses mean less care for the people who need it. What will it take for the Minister of Health to get the message and stop laying off front-line nurses?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, my fellow health care professional does understand—I know she does—that these changes that take place in our hospitals don’t necessarily or always mean layoffs. Programs change and programs are added.

I was at CHEO, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, just a couple of weeks ago with a number of my colleagues, actually, announcing a new program there for pediatric chronic pain management. I know we opened a similar program just a couple of weeks ago in London as well, and two here in Toronto. We’re adding staff to those programs as those new programs continue to evolve and expand.

In fact, on Health Sciences North, the member opposite—I know she knows that Health Sciences North has not cut nurses. They have not cut nurses in Health Sciences North.

I understand her perspective, but the reality, I think—if we need to look at any number, we need to look at the complement of nurses working in this province: 24,000 more working in the last decade than were before.

Rail safety

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I was in Gogama recently, where we all saw that volatile train derailment that took place. According to the Railway Association of Canada, oil shipments moved by Canadian railways went from 500 car loads in 2009 to 160,000 car loads in 2013 alone.

The movement of oil by rail continues to increase, and this means that rail safety will continue to be a growing issue for our province. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation please provide members of this House with an update on what our government is doing in response to the Gogama derailment?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member from Sudbury for a very important question on what I know is a very serious topic. I actually had the opportunity, as well, to see the derailment site myself when I visited the community of Gogama a number of days ago.

Speaker, I want to emphasize the fact that the safety of Ontario communities is our government’s top priority. That’s why I indicated some time ago that I intended to contact and in fact have contacted federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, as well as representatives from CN, about Saturday’s derailment.

We are not the only province that is taking this issue seriously. I have spoken directly with my Quebec counterpart, Transport Minister Robert Poeti. Minister Poeti and I agree that the federal government needs to do more to ensure that another derailment incident does not happen in the future. That’s why we wrote a joint letter to Minister Raitt to express our many concerns regarding the movement of dangerous goods by rail in Ontario and Quebec, but also across the country. In light of the recent accident, we know that more needs to be done to better protect our communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the minister for providing an update to this House on the action we’re taking in response to the Gogama derailment. I’m very pleased to hear that our government is working co-operatively with the Quebec government on this important issue.

While members of this House were relieved to know that no one was injured by that Saturday’s accident, the effects of the derailment and the fear felt by those living in nearby communities remain very real.

We also know that we’re not the only province that has felt effects of an accident like this. Quebec has also experienced the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which claimed the lives of 47 innocent people. Both our government and that of Quebec have chosen to work together to urge the federal government to ensure that disasters like this can never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell members of this House what is contained in the joint letter that was sent to the federal transport minister, Lisa Raitt?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Thank you again to the member for asking that important question. As I mentioned, Minister Poeti and I sent a joint letter to Minister Raitt asking the federal government to take stronger action with respect to addressing this issue. We know that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has warned that the existing standard for all new tank cars built for the transportation of flammable liquids is not sufficient.

A recent Transportation Safety Board review of Transport Canada’s implementation of recommendations following the Lac-Mégantic disaster found that Transport Canada had not yet put in place an effective oversight regime. That’s why our letter urges Transport Canada to work closely with the Transportation Safety Board as well as US regulatory authorities to better understand the cause of these accidents.

We’ve also asked that the federal government sit down with Minister Poeti and myself to provide us with an update on the actions that Transport Canada is taking to address this urgent situation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —including an update on the implementation of the recommendations made in the Transportation Safety Board’s report on the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

It is our hope that the federal government will work co-operatively with us—

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

New question.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. In mid-February you announced that roughly a quarter of the 1.2 million tickets you’ve targeted to sell for the games have been sold. Despite being over 900,000 tickets short with just over three months to go, you’ve stopped ticket sales from March 9 to mid-April. The reason? To sell tickets for the Parapan Am Games. I have a hard time believing that you’ll sell another 900,000 tickets total when you won’t let people buy them.

Now, I know technology isn’t your forte over there given the eHealth scandal and the SAMS scandal that’s going on, but, Minister, it’s a simple question. Why can’t you sell tickets to the Pan Am Games and the Parapan Am Games at the same time?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member for this question. We’ve been able to sell 350,000 tickets for the Pan Am Games so far, and we’re very, very proud of that number.

The reason why we stopped selling the Pan Am tickets to introduce the selling, during a short period, of the Parapan Am tickets is to make sure it gets the right type of attention the Parapan Am Games deserve.

This is the first time in the history of Pan Am/Parapan Am Games that we have a live broadcast for the para component that is full throughout the entire duration of the games; the first time that we have medals with Braille on them. We’ve built infrastructure that is the most accessible in the country, if not the world.

We are so proud of the para component of these games and we need to give it the right type of attention it deserves.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do is run two separate computer systems.

Listen, guys—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s ridiculous.

Minister, I want to draw your attention to a PricewaterhouseCoopers report prepared for your ministry back in 2009. That report ranks the likelihood of certain problems occurring with the Pan Am Games. Guess what has the highest probability of occurring? A shortfall in ticket sales, it said.

You’ve known since 2009 that you’d fall short of your nearly $34 million in projected ticket revenue, yet you’ve still closed ticket sales to the Pan Am Games for over a month. I just want to know, will Ontario taxpayers be forced to pick up the tab for your inability to plan the games and to sell the tickets for the games?

Hon. Michael Coteau: You know, 350,000 tickets—the last time I checked, that’s a pretty large number.

But in addition to those tickets, this is the first time in history that any sporting event has been able to attract 60,000 people to sign up to volunteer for these games—60,000 people. We’re very proud of the record on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are very confident with ticket sales, and we are very confident with these games. They’re going to be the best games that Canada has ever put on.

Education funding

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Education. Schools are at the heart of our communities, but this Liberal government wants to cut education funding and shut down schools across this province. Last fall, the New Democrats uncovered the Liberals’ plan to cut $500 million from our schools. Now we know that 48 schools in Toronto alone are facing closure. This unprecedented wave of school closures will make life harder for families by selling off green space and closing child care spots across the city. How can the minister defend her plan to shut down schools and wring public funding out of classrooms at the expense of our students?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I really do need to talk about the premise of your question, because the idea that we have cut funding to public education is, quite frankly, preposterous. We have, in fact, increased funding of schools by 56.5% since 2003. That’s an increase of 56.5% while the enrollment has been declining. The per pupil funding has gone up; it has gone up by over $4,000 per pupil for each and every pupil in Ontario, Speaker. So this whole idea that we’re out there cutting funding is absolutely preposterous.

The same is true of child care funding: Child care funding has also gone up, as have the number of child care spaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, the simple reality is that the minister has issued discussion documents telling school boards to be prepared for cuts of 1.5% to 2%—$500 million in cuts. The minister, this morning, did not use the normal argument that we’re funding empty seats in our schools, a key part of her argument.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives actually did the math. They called the ministry’s numbers on the empty schools “bogus” numbers. Speaker, that means that the Liberals are defending their school closure plans by using bad math, and forcing Toronto families to pay the price. When will the minister show parents the respect they deserve and stop using bogus numbers to justify deep Liberal cuts for children’s schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Actually, it was interesting to see what Margaret Wilson had to say about this whole issue, because Margaret Wilson looked at it, and she said, yes, there are a lot of schools in Toronto in which there is unused space. We had examples of 70 kids in a school that was built for 500, 300 kids in a school that was built for 1,000. We actually believe, Speaker, that what we need to do is concentrate on funding good programs for children who are there.

Of course, TDSB—and many other boards, but TDSB in particular—has identified that it has a backlog of renewal. Why does it have a backlog of renewal? Because it’s spending all its money on trying to maintain space that isn’t required. We want them to focus on maintaining the space that is required and on providing program for kids who are there.

Toronto District School Board

Mr. Han Dong: My question is also to the Minister of Education. I appreciate this opportunity to stand up in this House and ask a question that truly concerns the many constituents in my riding, especially the students, educators and parents like me. It’s about the Toronto District School Board. The TDSB is the largest and most diverse school board in Canada, with approximately 246,000 students attending nearly 600 schools. Public confidence in the TDSB is critical to ensuring public confidence across the entire education system.

I know constituents in my riding and across the city are concerned about the recent events taking place at the board. Minister, can you please tell the House how our government is handling these issues at the TDSB?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member is correct that public confidence in our school systems is absolutely critical.

Given some of the problems last November, I asked Margaret Wilson to have a look at the operational issues at the Toronto District School Board. Her observations were very troubling and confirmed the need for our government to take action, which is why I directed the TDSB to comply with 13 directions which reflected Margaret’s recommendations. I was encouraged to see that the TDSB has made some progress on a number of those directions. Clearly, it has ignited a discussion around community hubs, the role of trustees and a number of issues.

One of Margaret’s recommendations was to appoint a panel to actually consult with the community and to make recommendations about more effective governance. That’s why last week I announced the appointment of the panel which Margaret recommended.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I thank the minister for her answer. I know constituents in my riding will be pleased to hear that our government has taken action to ensure governance issues at the TDSB do not become an impediment to student achievement and well-being. I know our government’s top priority is the well-being of our students and to ensure that our students continue to achieve excellence.

I am also encouraged to hear that progress is being made by the TDSB on a number of directions. You mentioned that the seven-member expert panel will conduct public consultations within the local TDSB community. Minister, could you please tell this House some more information about the committee of advisers and what they will be looking into?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The seven-member panel will be led by Barbara Hall, who of course is just stepping down as Ontario’s Human Rights Commissioner. She’s also got a lot of experience as a lawyer and municipal politician, and a strong record in the ability to bring diverse groups together to solve problems.

The panel will be consulting with the TDSB community and make will recommendations on how to improve the governance structure at the TDSB. The panel will be looking for ways to create a supportive and inclusive culture at the board that will continue to support the success and well-being of our students, and to address the culture of fear which Margaret identified.

The panel will be leading 15 to 20 public consultations but the panel will also consult with trustees, senior staff, principals and union representatives across the TDSB, and will be reporting in the summer of—

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

Doctor shortage

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, under the imposed contract with doctors in Ontario there is a lack of clarity of where in rural Ontario doctors will be allowed to practise—in particular, the use of your term “high-needs area.” In fact, your ministry has provided little detail in the definition of a high-needs area.

Minister, throughout rural Ontario, many communities have a shortage of doctors which you have ignored. Can you please provide me with your definition of a high-needs area and what communities will fall under this definition?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I hope in the supplement of the member opposite’s question he will be a little more specific because I would hope that he knows that doctors are entitled to practise wherever they want in this province. It’s not a matter of restricting their ability to practise in the north, for example, or in southwestern Ontario or here in Toronto.

If what he’s in fact referring to is a specific category of those family doctors who choose to practise in family health teams—and I will only be able to determine this based on the supplemental—we are proposing and making some modest changes as well so that we can focus physicians in that important investment of family health teams in those parts of the province which need them the most. In the north, for example, where we currently have 40 family health teams, we need more. In other parts, in the underserviced areas of the province and in rural Ontario, we have about 60 family health teams. We need more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, the minister does know the fact that the majority of graduates and doctors are in family health teams, so to go off on that tangent is pure humbug.

Minister, due to the imposed contract with the current doctors, new graduates are going to leave this province. In addition, medical students will move to other specializations than family practice.

With an aging population and the retirement of many family doctors, the need for family physicians is only going to grow. Can you please provide the Legislature with your estimate as to how many fewer family physicians will be practising in this province as a result of your government’s imposed contracts?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, the answer to that question is that there will be more family physicians and more physicians and specialists practising in this province. In fact, since 2003, there are now 5,000 more doctors practising in Ontario as a result of our investments, and our family doctors have grown by 20% more in that decade. Our specialists have increased by 26%.

We’ve made significant investments to continue to attract doctors, but we also need to make sure—I think the member opposite would agree—that we deploy those physicians and we provide incentives to those places that really do need a family doctor or need that specialist to serve them.

Despite the fact that now 93% of Ontarians have access to a primary health care provider, that’s not enough. We need to continue to make those investments, but we also need to make sure that those rural parts of Ontario, including the north, as I mentioned, have family health teams. We have to make sure that we provide the level of services that those parts of the province deserve and require.

Rail safety

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique. As we all know, Speaker, on March 7, a CN train derailed. Dozens of cars spilled their oil and caught fire just outside of beautiful Gogama. The effect on the community and the environment has been severe and devastating.

Speaker, people throughout Ontario want their government to send businesses who deal with transporting dangerous goods to other communities a very clear message. Is the minister ready to use his own power to send that clear message to those businesses that they must operate safely or not at all, and that they are responsible for every penny needed to clean up the environment now and into the future?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m very glad the member has asked the question. It’s disappointing that it’s taken so many weeks for her to get up and ask a question on an issue that is now that old.

As you know, briefings were given to members opposite and the full weight of our very considerable authority is being applied in this situation. Staff were on the ground the first day—water, air and soil monitoring and remediation. CN is picking up all of the costs and providing capacity investments in those.

As you know from the briefing that you were given, we are now reviewing our legal options. We’re also working with Quebec and with both the Quebec and Ontario ministers of transportation. We presented a common front to the federal government to increase their standards and their practices to avoid these from happening in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: We know that the CN train derailment and spill has changed Gogama forever. I’ve talked to dozens of families from Gogama and from the Mattagami First Nation, and they are really worried. They are worried about what their future holds, especially if their livelihood depends on the natural resources.

Will the minister use the power that he has under the Environmental Protection Act to assist the people of Gogama and Mattagami First Nation in establishing claims against CN and the company who owns the crude oil?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think the member and her colleagues opposite know from briefings they have received that that entire process is already under way. We have specific legal authorities as a province, which we are exercising to the maximum of the law. We are also asking the federal government to do that. This includes people in tourism and in fishing. These are very important.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very concerned. Had this accident happened two kilometres farther down the track, it would have happened in the community of Gogama, and we could have faced another Lac-Mégantic.

This government and past ministers of transportation and the environment have raised this for years with the federal government jointly with our colleagues in Quebec. We have failed to see any action. We have had four derailments in northern Ontario. We’ve had Lac-Mégantic. We had Mount Carbon in West Virginia, which was a horrible tragedy, and we’ve had two in Illinois.

Rail standards and safe transportation of dangerous goods have been a priority for this government. It’s about time it was a priority for the federal government.

Municipal infrastructure

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I, too, am delighted to hear so many of the members opposite asking questions that matter to their constituents, and there are matters that are important to this House.

In that vein, Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, I would like to ask a question about the Owen Sound Sun Times, which had an

article recently about an issue that concerned that community. The city of Owen Sound would like this government to help them pay for some of the increased costs they’re facing due to broken water mains. We in Beaches–East York face the same concern. More pipes were frozen in Beaches–East York this winter than in any other part of the city of Toronto.

But the

article goes on to say that the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Progressive Conservative member plans to speak to Liberal Minister Glen Murray as soon as the Legislature resumes today. He hasn’t asked that question, so I will. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister—

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

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You should disallow that question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to be the Speaker.

I am not impressed with anyone who puts assignment to any other member in this House. It’s not appropriate, and it won’t be done.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, this is a very critical issue. We are facing unprecedented levels of impact on municipal infrastructure. We look at Burlington. Burlington, one of our newest suburban communities, now has a stormwater system that I know the Minister of Infrastructure will tell you is at capacity and needs major reinvestment, because we’re now experiencing once-in-a-hundred-years flood events almost every second year now.

Communities like Bancroft are facing flood events like they’ve never experienced before, and we’re seeing that in Owen Sound, which is why this government has put this issue forward.

We have had weeks—with these kinds of communities, whether it’s Bancroft or whether it’s Owen Sound—of members opposite claiming they were concerned about this, while we’ve had radio silence in this House.

I’m very glad the member for Beaches–East York is raising these issues, because they are very, very critical. I’m sure my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would like to talk about this further.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: My apologies to the House. It was not my intention to make assignment.

I would like, however, to get a more specific response to the issues in Owen Sound. Mayor Ian Boddy and his council would like provincial assistance to cover between $500,000 and $1 million in additional costs associated with these frozen water pipes.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, will our government help the municipality of Owen Sound when it comes to covering off these costs?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to thank the member from Beaches–East York for taking the opportunity to raise this issue.

We’ve had a particularly cold winter, and I’m aware of concerns about frozen pipes and water main breaks in some municipalities across the province. Although the winter was severe, our cities and towns have a responsibility to plan and manage their infrastructure assets responsibly.

I remain committed to touring the province and hearing from as many municipal councils as possible. In fact, this afternoon, I’ll be visiting with my 115th mayor and council when I head up to Grey Highlands in order to listen to their concerns and bring those concerns back to my colleagues here in government.

Mr. Bill Walker: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to suggest that I’m not satisfied with that answer and would like to perhaps—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I stand, you sit.

I’m going to leave this with all of you. This was not a race to the top. The righteous indignation of everyone in this House takes place when you don’t race to the top.

Visitor

Mr. John Fraser: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I was remiss this morning when I introduced page Joe Fast. I forgot to mention his father, Stewart Fast, who’s in the gallery today.

Correction of record

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: A point of order, Speaker: I said “broke the law.” I should have said “allegedly broke the law” in my question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is correct: At any time that any member wants to correct their record, they can do so.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Chatham Memorial Arena

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m incredibly honoured to say that Chatham-Kent has made the top 10 of the Kraft Hockeyville 2015 competition.

Hockey has a rich history throughout this country, and it brings entire communities together to celebrate the game we all love. In Chatham, that gathering place is at the Chatham Memorial Arena. First built in 1949 on the grounds of a training area used by the Canadian Forces during World War II, the Chatham Memorial Arena is the oldest arena in the community, yet it has had the fewest upgrades. It has been home to the Chatham Senior Maroons, who won the Allan Cup back in 1960—yes, Speaker, I do remember that—and also the Chatham Junior Maroons, who won the Sutherland Cup for Junior B hockey in 1999.

I actually gave that team a motivational speech when they were down three games to nothing against Leamington, also in my riding. They came back to not only win that series but the league championship, and then they went on to win the Sutherland Cup.

Interjection: It must have been the speech.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Had to be the speech.

Our area manager, Brian Bennet, has been a part of the arena since the 1960s. He devotes himself to the arena and the community, and he could use some help. The roof needs some work. The bathrooms need upgrades, and I’m sure that hockey players would love to see some larger dressing rooms. The same hard benches that were installed in 1949 remain as seating today. The arena offers a rustic, and some might even say rough, atmosphere.

The winner of the contest will receive $100,000 in arena upgrades and host an NHL pre-season game. So I encourage every member of the Legislature to get out and vote especially for Chatham-Kent.

Co-op programs

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Last week was co-op week in Canada, and to celebrate the occasion, two Ontario students were honoured as national co-op students of the year: Andrew Andrade from the University of Waterloo and Rumman Ullah Khan from Fanshawe College, which, I am proud to say, is located in my home community of London.

Andrew Andrade is a third-year engineering student from Mississauga. During an entrepreneurial co-op work term at the University of Waterloo, he not only co-founded his own start-up, PetroPredict, but he also hired and supervised four other co-op students to assist with his software business.

Rumman Ullah Khan is an international student, studying business marketing at Fanshawe College, who has completed three co-op work terms and praises the opportunities that co-operative education provides.

Rumman is exactly the kind of immigrant we need in London and in Ontario. I urge the Liberal government to advocate strongly to ensure that the new express entry immigration process does not create barriers for international students like Rumman.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to congratulate Andrew and Rumman. Congratulations as well to Ali Zaheer from Sheridan College and Skye Wattie from the University of Waterloo, who also received Ontario Co-op Student of the Year Awards from Education at Work Ontario. The excellence and achievements demonstrated by these four young people shows how co-op programs benefit students and the Ontario economy.

I hope all members of this Legislature will support my private member’s bill, Protecting Interns and Creating a Learning Economy Act, that will expand co-op programs in this province.

The Speaker

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today

With something I really must say,

I hope you’re listening at the back

And I hope you don’t mind

That I share it in rhyme,

For it’s about a sage man called Levac.

For o’er 10 and five years,

You have worked in this sphere

As MPP for the riding of Brant,

But for the last few

You had much more to do

As the Speaker, with pow’r to end rants.

The Speaker, you’ll know,

Is not just for show.

He presides over all in this House.

With the guardian here

The debate rules are clear,

Defined well beyond any doubts.

In most recent days,

Debate’s been ablaze,

With the same points ever repeated.

Your response has been just,

You’re holding our trust,

Though discussions are oft overheated.

Alas, here we are,

Spring break now seems afar,

How we long for a changed conversation.

But no ... it’s more: “I stand, you sit,

“Twice warned and that’s it!”

Instead of our new legislation.

Legislative changes much needed,

Demands for “Order!” not always heeded,

I listen, yet shake my head in awe.

Teacher and principal at heart,

Your compassion and patience—true art,

How the daily antics here surely must gnaw.

So let it be known

While insults are thrown

That we truly respect what you do.

To the citizens of Brant

I direct my rant

From this House’s heart: Hear, hear; thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Because I heard some heckling, I want to hear it again.

Sorry; members’ statements. The member for Perth–Wellington.

Paddyfest

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: This past weekend I was pleased to celebrate Paddyfest in Listowel. Paddyfest is a two-week-long Irish festival organized by the Kin clubs of Listowel. Now in its 38th year, it is one of North America’s biggest Irish festivals.

Paddyfest is packed with events, including concerts, sporting tournaments and family fun activities. I spent Saturday morning flipping pancakes at the Paddyfest pancake breakfast and taking

part in the Paddyfest parade, which brings the whole community out.

I would like to thank the Kinsmen and Kinette clubs of Listowel for their hard work organizing yet another successful Paddyfest. I would also like to recognize Melissa Dunphy, this year’s Paddyfest ambassador.

There was a great turnout at this year’s Paddyfest. Proceeds will be going towards community projects, including the Steve Kerr Memorial Complex. We hope the province will join us in supporting this project.

Again, thank you to the organizers, the volunteers and the sponsors who contributed to Paddyfest, and thank you to the North Perth community for coming together to enjoy this year’s festival.

Indian independence movement

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Today I rise to commemorate three freedom fighters who opposed British oppression in India and fought for the independence of India, in fact. Those three individuals are Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar and Shivaram Rajguru.

March 23, 1931, is recognized as martyrdom day. They fought for an independent place, an independent country. They fought for a place which would respect human rights, freedom and the dignity of life.

However, it’s ironic that three days earlier, March 20, in the year 2000, there were very heinous massacres that occurred and which were perpetrated ostensibly by the Indian government itself. This is not the type of India that these three brave souls gave their lives to defend. This is not the India that these brave souls fought for the independence of.

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar and Shivaram Rajguru fought for a free and independent country, not a country which is responsible for mass human rights violations, particularly what happened in the Chattisinghpora massacre, which is connected with the Pathribal killings as well as the Barakpora killings.

Bhagat Singh stated—and it’s a very strong and powerful quote: “It is easy to kill individuals, but you cannot kill their ideas. Great empires crumbled while the ideas survived.” In memory of Baghat Singh, let us hope that we can move towards a society where all can live in freedom and justice.

Mental health services

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: During constituency week I had the pleasure of touring and making a funding announcement at the clubhouse at the Canadian Mental Health Association Simcoe County. The CMHA Simcoe County Branch is a non-profit charitable association funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care through the local health integration network. Funding is also provided by the United Way and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

Founded in 1960, Barrie Mental Health provided the city of Barrie with its first psychiatrist. This agency also provided community education, advocacy and volunteers to go to the Oak Ridge facility in Penetanguishene. CMHA Barrie-Simcoe continued to grow, offering a full range of services including case management, employment opportunities, a social-recreational clubhouse, and housing services. In 2010, CMHA Simcoe amalgamated with Simcoe Outreach Services.

When new clients arrive, they are welcomed by greeter cats Daisy and Lilly. Led by Lynne Raimondi and Lori Howcroft through the RSVP program at the clubhouse, clients are then provided with recreational, social, vocational and peer support.

I am pleased to recognize the dedicated staff and volunteers for all the invaluable work that they do for our community. Thank you.

Anatolian Heritage Federation

Mr. Todd Smith: Today, our friends from the Anatolian Heritage Federation have come to Queen’s Park to host their annual friendship reception in support of Turkic Canadian solidarity and cultural heritage, and we welcome them. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome our friends and thank members from the communities for their many contributions to the multicultural fabric of our province.

The Anatolian Heritage Federation is a not-for-profit organization that represents Turkic communities right across Ontario. On this special occasion, I’d like to inform you that the Ontario PC caucus will be co-sponsoring a bill to proclaim one week in March every year as Turkic Heritage Week in Ontario, in order to remember and share the cultural heritage and educate future generations about the inspirational role that Turkic Canadians have played and continue to play in communities in Ontario.

Turkic Heritage Week shall occur during the third or fourth week of March, whichever includes the 21st day—and that’s the day we mark the first day of spring and promote values of peace and solidarity between generations and within families.

On behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I’d like to wish members of the Anatolian Heritage Federation and all attendees of today’s friendship reception a very happy and successful event. I strongly believe that with the help of all of our colleagues here in the Ontario Legislature, the proposed bill will become a law, and I’m confident that one year from now, we’ll all celebrate Turkic Heritage Week for the first time in the history of our province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome our guests.

Community skate

Mr. Arthur Potts: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to tell you about St. Patrick’s Day, when I hosted—not hoisted—my first community skate at the East York Memorial Arena in Beaches–East York.

Constituents of all ages came out to enjoy hot chocolate and cookies provided by the local McDonald’s. They received a Toronto Maple Leafs program from MLSE and took in the dulcet sounds of New Orleans jazz performed live by our constituent Patrick Tevlin and his band, The Happy Pals.

The kids wasted no time to lace up, show their moves and play games of tag. Dozens of families from Crescent Town, Main Square, Parma Court and the Secord communities came out to participate. Parents and kids alike were very appreciative, many saying that this was the best part of March break.

I’d like to thank Tameem Sharifi of the Thorncliffe Park youth centre for providing us with four hockey bags filled with skates and helmets. Because of their generous donation, many kids for the very first time had an opportunity to come out and skate.

I remember one little girl, Alisha. It was her first time on skates and she could barely stand up, but she was absolutely determined to make it around the rink. About a half an hour later, there she was, with a little help from friends and family, standing there with a big smile on her face, and you could see that her mother was equally proud.

Mr. Speaker, a big thanks to my staff, the volunteers and the companies that helped put on this event and for all those who came out. I look forward to an even bigger and better event next year. It’s been just a tremendous opportunity to enjoy the community’s activities.

Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre / Centre de naissance et de bien-être d’Ottawa

Mr. John Fraser: I rise today in recognition of the incredible work being done at the Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre, also known as the OBWC, located in my riding of Ottawa South. Earlier this month, I was pleased to attend the centre’s first birthday party, and it was a wonderful celebration. The centre was the first of its kind in Ontario and is an important partner in child and maternal health. We’re very fortunate to have it located in the heart of our community.

Over the past year, the Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre has provided 450 moms and their families with more options for natural childbirth in an environment that is safe and respectful. They have become known for their responsiveness and professionalism and are regarded as insightful leaders in our community.

My father used to say that each time we welcome the birth of a new baby, it means a little more hope for the world. Mon père disait toujours qu’à chaque fois qu’un bébé est né, cela signifie du nouvel espoir pour le monde.

Congratulations to everyone at the Ottawa Birth and Wellness Centre on your one-year anniversary and thank you for bringing a little more hope to our world.

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

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario

Mr. Naqvi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animals for Research Act with respect to the possession and breeding of orcas and administrative requirements for animal care / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario et la

Loi sur les animaux destinés à la recherche en ce qui concerne la possession et l’élevage d’épaulards ainsi que les exigences administratives relatives aux soins dispensés aux animaux.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Today we are moving forward with a bill that amends the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and makes related amendments to the Animals for Research Act.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will be amended to prohibit the breeding and acquisition of orcas in Ontario. The bill also enables regulation-making authority to set administrative standards of care for marine mammals, such as dolphins, belugas and walruses, to ensure the best possible care and conditions for these animals.

731149 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

Mr. Bailey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive 731149 Ontario Limited.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 86, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills.

Motions

Committee report

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Notwithstanding the order of the House dated December 11, 2014, the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment be authorized to present its interim report no later than June 24, 2015.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated December 11, 2014, the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment be authorized to present its interim report no later than June 24, 2015. Do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Committee membership

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding committee membership.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I move that Ms. DiNovo replace Ms. Forster on the membership for the Standing Committee on Estimates, and Mr. Singh replace Madame Gélinas on the membership of the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that Ms. DiNovo replace Ms. Forster on the membership for the Standing Committee on Estimates, and Mr. Singh replace Madame Gélinas on the membership of the Standing Committee on Social Policy. Do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Alzheimer’s disease

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

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are progressive, degenerative diseases of the brain that cause thinking, memory and physical functioning to become seriously impaired;

“Whereas there is no known cause or cure for this devastating illness; and

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias also take their toll on hundreds of thousands of families and care partners; and

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect more than 200,000 Ontarians today, with an annual total economic burden rising to $15.7 billion by 2020; and

“Whereas the cost related to the health care system is in the billions and only going to increase, at a time when our health care system is already facing enormous financial challenges; and

“Whereas there is work under way to address the need, but no coordinated or comprehensive approach to tackling the issues; and

“Whereas there is an urgent need to plan and raise awareness and understanding about Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for the sake of improving the quality of life of the people it touches;

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

“To approve the development of a comprehensive Ontario dementia plan that would include the development of strategies in primary health care, in health promotion and prevention of illness, in community development, in building community capacity and care partner engagement, in caregiver support and investments in research.”

I fully support it and sign it, and give it to page Danielle.

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas there are an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 unpaid internships in Canada each year; and

“Whereas youth unemployment in Ontario is over 15%; and

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Labour is not adequately enforcing the laws on unpaid internships;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take the following actions:

“

(1) Proactively enforce the law on unpaid internships;

“

(2) Engage in an educational campaign to inform students, youth, employers, educational institutions and the general public of the laws surrounding unpaid internships; and

“

(3) Undertake a comprehensive review of the current laws surrounding unpaid internships in Ontario.”

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

Off-road vehicles

Mr. Steve Clark: I’ve just got to get the right one here, because Norm Miller is behind me.

This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas it has been over a decade since regulation 316/03 of the Highway Traffic Act has been updated to recognize new classes of off-road vehicles and a motion to do so passed on November 7, 2013, with unanimous support of the provincial Legislature;

“Whereas owners of two-up ATVs and side-by-side UTVs deserve clarity in knowing which roadways and trails are legal for use of these off-road vehicles; and

“Whereas owners should be able to legally use their vehicles to access woodlots, trails and hunting and fishing destinations;

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

“That private member’s Bill 58, which seeks to update the Highway Traffic Act to include new classes of all-terrain and utility task vehicles, receive swift passage through the Legislature.”

I’m pleased to affix my signature and send it to the table with page Jade.

First responders

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas emergency response workers (paramedics, police officers, and firefighters) confront traumatic events on a nearly daily basis to provide safety to the public; and

“Whereas many emergency response workers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their work; and

“Whereas Bill 2 ‘An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder’ sets out that if an emergency response worker suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, the disorder is presumed to be an occupational disease that occurred due to their employment as an emergency response worker, unless the contrary is shown;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to unanimously endorse and quickly pass Bill 2 ‘An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder’.”

I sign this petition and give it to page Kari.

Credit unions

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario support our 1.3 million members across Ontario through loans to small businesses to start up, grow and create jobs, help families to buy homes and assist their communities with charitable investments and volunteering; and

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario want a level playing field so they can provide the same service to our members as other financial institutions and promote economic growth without relying on taxpayers’ resources;

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

“Support the strength and growth of credit unions to support the strength and growth of Ontario’s economy and create jobs in three ways:

“—maintain current credit union provincial tax rates;

“—show confidence in Ontario credit unions by increasing credit union-funded deposit insurance limits to a minimum of $250,000;

“—allow credit unions to diversify by allowing Ontario credit unions to own 100% of subsidiaries.”

I support the intent of this petition, affix my signature to it and hand it to page Aiden.

Health care funding

Mr. Norm Miller: I have petitions that were given to me at the Save Our Services rally for the hospitals in Bracebridge and Huntsville on the weekend—thousands of signatures. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we categorically reject the notion that core services such as surgical procedures should ever be moved to one hospital site in Muskoka and that doing so would have an adverse effect on our municipalities;

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

“We urge our leaders to act now to reject single siting surgery and/or other core services that would result in the closure or downgrading of either acute care site in Muskoka. We believe the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care needs to address the health care funding model as it applies to Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare, which will avoid the situation as it stands.”

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this petition. I have signed it and will give it to Luc.

Social assistance

Miss Monique Taylor: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas social assistance benefits in Ontario leave recipients far below the poverty line, struggling to meet the basic costs of living, and without any resources to handle emergencies;

“Whereas the provincial government recently cut the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit;

“Whereas the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit helped families pay for basic utilities in emergency situations and helped prevent people from becoming homeless;

“Whereas this program provided options for vulnerable people including women, children and people with disabilities to escape domestic violence and transition to safer housing;

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

“That the province of Ontario restore full funding for the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit and ensure that it goes directly to those who need it.”

I couldn’t agree with this more, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to affix my name to it and give it to Thomas to bring to the Clerk.

Water fluoridation

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

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second-most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentrations; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

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

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario adopt the number one recommendation made by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health in a 2012 report on oral health in Ontario, and amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I agree with this petition. I sign my name and leave it with page Jessie.

Taxation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support it, will affix my name and send it with page Ian.

Gasoline prices

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was put together by Mrs. Kathryn Farrell from Garson, in my riding. It reads as follows:

“Whereas northern Ontario motorists continue to be subject to wild fluctuations in the price of gasoline; and

“Whereas the province could eliminate opportunistic price gouging and deliver fair, stable and predictable fuel prices; and

“Whereas five provinces and many US states already have some sort of ... price regulation; and

“Whereas jurisdictions with gas-price regulation have seen an end to wild ... fluctuations, a shrinking of price discrepancies between urban and rural communities and lower annualized gas prices;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario” to:

“Mandate the Ontario Energy Board to monitor the price of gasoline across Ontario in order to reduce price volatility and unfair regional price differences while encouraging competition.”

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

Credit unions

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I have a petition here that’s addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario support our 1.3 million members across Ontario through loans to small businesses to start up, grow and create jobs, help families to buy homes and assist their communities with charitable investments and volunteering; and

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario want a level playing field so they can provide the same service to our members as other financial institutions and promote economic growth without relying on taxpayers’ resources;

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

“Support the strength and growth of credit unions to support the strength and growth of Ontario’s economy and create jobs in three ways:

“—maintain current credit union provincial tax rates;

“—show confidence in Ontario credit unions by increasing credit union-funded deposit insurance limits to a minimum of $250,000;

“—allow credit unions to diversify by allowing ... credit unions to own 100% of subsidiaries.”

I agree with this petition. I’m affixing my signature to it, and I’m handing it over to page Natasha.

Winter road maintenance

Mr. Norm Miller: I’ve received petitions from Golden Valley, Ontario, with regard to improved winter road maintenance. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the area maintenance contract system has failed Ontario drivers the past two winters;

“Whereas unsafe conditions led to the maintenance contractor being fined in the winter of 2013-14, as well as leading to a special investigation by the provincial Auditor General;

“Whereas the managed outsourcing system for winter roads maintenance, where the private contractor is responsible for maintenance, but MTO patrols the region and directs the contractor on the deployment of vehicles, sand and salt, has a proven track record for removing snow and ensuring that Ontario’s highways are safe for travellers;

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

“That the Ontario Ministry of Transportation take immediate action to improve the maintenance of winter roads based on the positive benefits of the previous delivery model, where MTO plays more of a role in directing the private contractor.”

I support this petition and give it to Aiden.

Municipalities

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have a petition signed by a number of constituents in London West. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas questionable activities and ethical lapses have been occurring by elected officials in various municipalities throughout the province; and

“Whereas in the city of London the Ontario Ombudsman has been repeatedly asked to investigate questionable conduct by elected officials, including secret private meetings in apparent contravention of the Municipal Act; and

“Whereas the Municipal Act of Ontario lacks the legal mechanisms to prevent such closed meetings from happening, lacks concrete consequences to discipline conduct breaches, and provides no mechanism to suspend or remove a municipal council member facing or being convicted of criminal charges;

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

“To re-evaluate and amend the Municipal Act, and the Ombudsman Act, to ensure the integrity of our democracy. We call upon you to help restore the public’s confidence and trust in our municipal governments by ensuring accountability and providing citizens a means to initiate disciplinary recourse where and when appropriate.”

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

Health care

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

“Whereas providing patients with access to information about their medical doctor’s treatment history is fundamental to regulating the medical profession and ensuring Ontario’s health care system is accountable and transparent;

“Whereas currently, Ontario patients do not have access to this information, which is also an important measure to improve patient safety and empower them when making decisions about medical treatment;

“Whereas making public all information about complaints, cautions and remedial action taken against a physician does not diminish the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ ability to self-regulate, but rather brings balance to the relationship between doctors and patients;

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

“That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care act immediately to implement the transparency and accountability measures contained in Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991.”

I’m pleased to affix my signature in support and send it to the table with page Ian.

Orders of the Day

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 5, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest / Projet de loi 52, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

Loi sur la diffamation et la

Loi sur l’exercice des compétences légales afin de protéger l’expression sur les affaires d’intérêt public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item was last debated, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton had the floor. I will recognize the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s my pleasure to continue debate on this important piece of legislation. What I discussed earlier was how important this bill was in terms of protecting public participation. It’s, again, a hallmark of our society that people need to be able to participate in discourse, particularly on matters that impact their communities, so it should go without saying that people should be encouraged, not discouraged, from participating in issues that affect where they live and how they live. This law will address that.

When we speak about public participation, we also need to talk about other forms of public participation, and those areas that need to be addressed as well. One of the most important ways that people can participate in public discourse is through protest. Protest, or dissent, is often referred to as the hallmark of a democracy, a hallmark of a free society.

You need to be able to get up and say, “I disagree with what’s going on.” While we, in this legislation, are looking to protect public discourse, so that people don’t get sued in a strategic way that is seeking to silence them, so that people who raise their concerns are not going to suffer from a long, drawn-out legal battle that seeks to discourage them from participating in whatever the discourse was, we also need to look at the other forms of public discourse, namely protests.

The G20—we referred to this a number of times—was one of the worst examples, one of the worst cases of civil rights violations in the history of Ontario and, in fact, one of the most heinous acts of civil rights violation in the history of Canada. It was something that happened due to a number of factors, including the use of the PWPA, the Public Works Protection Act, which is also a law that is overly broad, overly vague and resulted in some gross violations.

But there is also another area. There is a certain combative culture that exists right now between the police and the citizenship. That combative relationship needs to be addressed. It’s something that requires a culture shift. When I spoke at an event just a year or so back, there was an association of police boards, and they had made recommendations on how to improve upon what happened at the G20. I was invited to speak, and they asked me, “We want you to be critical. We don’t want you to hold your punches.

If there’s something we can improve upon, look at our report and speak freely.” I warned them, “If I’m given free licence to speak freely, I will actually do that.” They encouraged me. They said, “For sure. Speak freely and let us know what you think.”

One of the sections of the report talked about the improvements they need to do around protests. They referred to protests and they said, “We need to improve our strategies around crowd control.” I got up and I said—I want to share this with you, as well, as members of the Legislature—that right off the bat, when you discuss dealing with protesters as “crowd control,” it creates a combat. It creates a divide between the police and the everyday citizens. It creates a tension. The suggestion is that the police are going to control the crowd.

Instead, I suggested, what if the remarks were based around looking at facilitating the protesters, facilitating this democratic right in an effective and safe way? That would be a shift in the culture if, instead of looking at this as a problem—“Someone is protesting. This is a problem. We need to solve this problem. We need to control this crowd”—the approach was, “This is a democratic right. We want to encourage people protesting. We want to encourage people’s right to dissent.”

How can we facilitate this right in a meaningful way? That would absolutely shift the combative and intense relationship between the police and the protesters, and instead shift it to something that was more positive, that would in fact encourage democracy, that would in fact encourage those protesters and allow it to be facilitated in a way that would be effective, again, also keeping in mind the police’s important role of providing safety and security. That’s a shift that we need to see.

If we really want to encourage public participation, it needs to be seen as something that is seen as a valid and important thing. When it comes to what happened in the G20, a lot of the problems arose, again, from the PWPA, the fact that that law was so broad and gave far too many powers. When you have broad powers that are vague, it results in violations.

In addition to that, there’s also a problem around the culture. The culture was not one that spoke to facilitating and encouraging the protesters; it spoke to fighting with them, controlling them—this combative discourse. That’s what we need to shift.

While this law certainly speaks to protecting people from legal ramifications, it doesn’t address the other form of public discourse or public participation, which is protest. We need to talk about that. So I suggest that one particular, concrete action we can take is looking at how we can change policies when it comes to people protesting.

In terms of the provincial government, the Attorney General’s ministry can inform police forces across this province and say, “When there is a protest, this is something that should be encouraged. It should be something that’s facilitated.” How can we do that? Well, we can make sure that there isn’t an immediate escalation of the protests by having an approach which is militarized or an approach which is aggressive or an approach which is combative. We can begin by saying that we don’t need to approach protesters as a problem; we can step back and be passive in terms of our approach to them.

These can be policy directives that this government can implement. Again, if we are serious about encouraging public participation, let’s have a policy directive from the government that says that protesting is acceptable, protesting is encouraged, and we want the police to facilitate it. We want the police to have a passive role in terms of protests until there is a clear and identifiable risk, and to only approach those identifiable risks in a manner that’s appropriate and proportional to the risk.

Instead of assuming the worst and having an aggressive stance right off the bat, we would like to see, and I would like to see, a policy that encourages those protesters by saying, “We can begin the interactions by having a passive approach, an approach which is not combative.” That would encourage more discourse.

The reason why I speak to this is, while the laws are important—and laws obviously determine the direction that our province moves in, and laws that protect discourse are, of course, important—we also need to have policy directives. We also need to inform police officers and the police forces across municipalities and across the province in terms of what their direction should be. What should be the appropriate manner in which they deal with citizens?

In addition to that, it also speaks to some of the recent events that we’ve seen in the past year where there have been some serious concerns around police accountability and the approach that police take to individuals in general. In addition to something that I’ve requested, which is this directive on encouraging public participation through a policy on how protesters are dealt with, we also need to look at the police strategy around de-escalation of conflicts. Right now, as it stands, the police have a policy which, if you look at recent events, seems to be an escalation strategy.

If there is a conflict, if there is a problem, the police come in in a manner which is escalating the conflict, which is escalating the situation, particularly in situations that are already tense.

I refer to the Sammy Yatim tragedy, which is one of the telling situations where the police could have approached that situation in a manner that would have de-escalated the violence. There was a threat. There was certainly a concern. But Mr. Yatim was in a streetcar by himself. There were no other bystanders in that streetcar. The approach taken by the police in that case was not one that looked at de-escalating that situation but instead looked at approaching it in an aggressive manner that escalated the violence. These are areas that we really need to look at.

Again, if we’re speaking about public participation, we’re speaking about encouraging people and allowing them to participate in democracy. But we also need to look at how the police approach protesters. There needs to be a serious discussion around how the police approach conflict. Instead of looking at strategies which involve the use of force, use of weapons, let’s look at the use of de-escalation tactics—the use of negotiation, the use of communication—to take a situation and bring down the tension levels, bring down the stress levels so that we don’t see some of the tragedies we’ve seen in the past year.

When we look at this particular legislation, while I’m encouraged by much of the bill—the recommendations from the SLAPP panel were implemented in a meaningful way in this bill—I also want to speak to some of the problems we still see. One of the major problems that still exist is that if we look at the situation—let’s use the example of a community meeting where the community is opposed to a particular development in their neighbourhood. The community members get together and say, “We do not want this development to occur. It will erode the nature or the character of our community, and we don’t want it here.

We don’t want that particular development.” They get together and protest this development, whatever it may be.

As it stands, without this legislation, the developer can say, “Because of this protest, because of these key community activists or community spokespeople who are opposed to our development, we are suffering an economic loss. We are suffering, potentially, because we can’t make this building or this store happen. We can’t allow it, or it can’t be built. Because there is a delay in it being built, it’s going to cause us an economic loss.” So a lawsuit is initiated, and its sole purpose is, essentially, to silence that individual.

This bill will protect that incidence, that particular scenario, by saying, “Listen, in those cases where a developer seeks to sue somebody strictly to silence them—there is really no merit to their argument—and, in fact, what that community spokesperson or activist is doing is something we want to encourage; they’re participating in public discourse, they’re actually speaking about how they want their community to develop, and that’s a good thing, this law will allow for a quick mechanism to dismiss those types of lawsuits.”

But what about the letter that’s sent? If you don’t have legal training, what if that community spokesperson isn’t actually sued but they receive a letter, and the letter reads, “You will be taken to court and sued for a substantial sum of money with all the recourse of the law,” and there’s legal terminology used in that letter; there is the threat of a lawsuit in that letter? That letter itself is so chilling—it has such a chilling effect; it’s so scary to read—that the community spokesperson says, “Listen, I don’t want to get sued. I’m going to stop doing what I’m doing.

I’m not going to risk a multi-million-dollar lawsuit, because I am just afraid. I have received this letter from a very prestigious law firm or a well-known lawyer, and I’m afraid,” and that person decides not to participate. This bill wouldn’t protect that scenario. That letter is something that could silence that individual, could intimidate that individual, and we don’t have recourse.

The individual ought to know—if they have legal training, they would know—that simply receiving a letter in the mail isn’t an actual lawsuit and isn’t going to result in anything. But what does an individual who doesn’t have any legal training know about that? The reality is that we need to do more. If we really want to encourage public participation, we need to ensure that people are informed of their rights.

So, in addition to this legislation, I think that one of the areas we need to work on is policy directives for the police to encourage participation in terms of protests, but we also need an informed public. Not only do we need legislation that protects people from being sued in a strategic way to silence them; we also need some concerted effort from the government to educate and inform the people of Ontario that it is something you are allowed to do, and we in fact encourage you to participate in this way.

We want people to speak about their communities. We want people to speak up for a particular development or against it. This is something we want to see happen, and it is your right to organize, to get together as a community and speak about these issues. If you receive a letter that says you are going to be sued, this new legislation will protect you from frivolous lawsuits—lawsuits that are without merit. And if you are engaged in meaningful public participation, that is something we want to encourage and protect; don’t be afraid of letters of that sort.

So I think there needs to be an education component to this discussion, this sentiment or this idea of public participation. We have a law that is before us now, which is important, but we also need to have an education component that speaks to informing the public of their rights, of the importance and of our position as legislators; as decision-makers, we want to encourage people. In addition, we need policy directives that actually speak to those who are actually going to enforce the rule of law.

We want them to know, those who are involved in police forces, those who are involved in carrying out and enforcing the law—we want them to be informed and to have policy directives that make it clear that we, as Ontarians and Canadians, believe that people should participate in public discourse and debate and have dissent. This is something that’s important.

I want to highlight—and I spoke of this very briefly on a previous occasion—the New Democratic support for this bill. Ontario New Democrats have long believed in protecting public participation. In fact, both in 2008 and 2012, Andrea Horwath, the leader of our party, introduced anti-SLAPP legislation. When Ms. Horwath, the leader of our party, introduced this legislation, we did not receive support from the Liberals at the time, and we want to make it clear that we have supported this issue. We acted on that support by introducing legislation, and we’re happy to see now that the Liberal Party has finally caught up with us.

The importance of this bill, again, can’t be understated. There have been a number of incidents where people have tried to raise their concerns and have been silenced by lawsuits. I spoke about environmental groups that have raised their concerns and have been silenced by developers. I previously spoke about, and I want to raise again, people who are part of municipalities who have raised concerns around various developments.

In fact, there were a number of people who were concerned about the treatment of animals at a particular facility, at an amusement park, and while the government has now introduced a law seeming to address this issue, I want to make it clear that people have raised concerns around animal treatment and did not receive any support or protection and, in fact, were hit with significant lawsuits. For example, Mr. Powell of Marineland Animal Defense is right now currently facing a $1.5-million SLAPP. It was based on his activities raising concerns and information around the treatment of animals. Right now, he is facing this lawsuit.

This is a real issue. People are faced with these lawsuits which discourage them, which intimidate them, which make them unlikely to participate now and in the future as well. We need to make sure that people know that this law is going to be enacted, and when it is enacted, we need to make sure the public is aware of their rights, that they’re aware that there may still be lawsuits initiated against them but there is this protection that exists. I think that is so important. Often we have a law, but if that law, first of all, doesn’t get enforced, it does nothing.

In addition, if we don’t know about the strengths of that law, if we don’t know there is a law that protects our actions, it doesn’t have the same weight.

While this law is supported by all parties, and I’m looking forward to its passage, I want to make sure that we do some work around informing the public of their rights so they know they have this protection. I look forward to a society where we encourage more public participation.

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m glad to have this opportunity to say a few words based on the comments of the member across the way, from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

This particular piece of legislation, if I could say, Mr. Speaker, to add to what he has already said, is long overdue. If I could share quickly with all of you, I was a community activist back in 1985. I had a confrontation with the Ministry of Finance on property assessment. The assessor and myself did not agree. And guess what? The government served me one of these letters, saying that I should cease and desist. Had I gone away, market value assessment would not be in place today. I ignored the letter, I pushed ahead and, sure enough, we had market value assessment in 1998. The law was changed. This Legislature agreed with me.

I have to say to you that this particular issue has been outstanding for a long time. It’s long overdue. I want to congratulate the government for finally recognizing that we need to stop this because it happens in many areas in community concerns, where someone takes an action because they have a concern in their community and they receive these types of letters from lawyers for developers and all kinds of other issues in communities.

So it’s long overdue. I think it’s the right direction to go in. There might be some concerns because it’s a made-in-Ontario piece of legislation. It’s a first of its kind. But when it goes to committee, all of us will have opportunity to discuss it and hopefully improve this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me that opportunity.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: I always listen attentively to the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on issues like this. He has a background in the law. His comments are quite appropriate with respect to these kinds of SLAPP lawsuits.

We just heard in this chamber that action on this issue is long overdue, and I do know—I heard a fair bit about the issue of SLAPP lawsuits probably seven years ago. I was environment critic. We were debating the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. Public hearings were held, and a number of people were at the witness table representing an Innisfil ratepayers’ group. He was about to speak, and then he looked around furtively. Then he explained to us on the committee that he was subject to a $1-million lawsuit.

He felt maybe he was somewhat protected to be able to stand up at committee and talk about the confrontations—you mentioned confrontations—that they were having, as a ratepayer cottagers’ group, with developers. This was up at Big Bay Point. These hearings were being held just a few days after Remembrance Day. Here we had someone at the witness table, very reluctant to present their case because of this lawsuit.

I can empathize with his concern, his fear. I’ve been involved in confrontation on Caledonia, and I have been named in a lawsuit. This is hard to believe. I’ve been named in a lawsuit that totals $226 billion. That’s “billion” with a B. Many people think I’m referring to million, but I’m subject to a $226-billion lawsuit. I don’t think this assembly can help me out on this one.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and follow the comments from my colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on Bill 52. Basically, it’s anti-SLAPP legislation, and I’m hopefully going to have the opportunity to speak a bit more this afternoon on that issue.

He raised an issue that I hadn’t thought about for a long time, and that’s the ugly lawyer letter. You know what? I’m sure a lot of us have had those. I can remember when I first got involved with community groups, with farm organizations, and I can remember my first ugly lawyer letter. Basically, unless I complied with this letter, the sky was going to fall in. When you’re 22 or 23, you’re just starting out with your business and starting out with your family—maybe I was 25; I can’t remember. You got this letter, and it’s sitting on your kitchen table. You think, “Okay.

Do I continue with this battle or do I throw in the towel right now?” How many good fights, worthwhile causes, have been lost because of—and I’m sure there’s a nicer word for it, but I call it the ugly lawyer letter?

He brought up a very good point. This legislation—and we support it. It is kind of a touchy subject in parts in my riding. In parts of resource industry places it’s a touchy subject, and I’ll get to that in my 20 minutes. But we’ve supported this legislation from the start, continue to support it, but it doesn’t have any impact on the legal professions—you know, the $1,000 lawyer letter: you pay $1,000, they send you an ugly letter, and hopefully you go away.

We do need a training session on how to equip people to deal with that, because most of the time, when people get involved in these controversies, they come to it innocently enough, and the