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

March 7, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Mar-07 (PDF)

L051 - Tue 7 Mar 2017 / Mar 7 mar 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 March 2017 Mardi 7 mars 2017

Orders of the Day

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Women veterans

Oral Questions

School closures

School closures

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

School closures

Cancer treatment

Beverage alcohol sales

School closures

Children’s services

Access to information

School closures

Agri-food industry

Mental health services

School closures

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Shazia Ambreen

Autism treatment

Kaitlyn Gardiner

Community Living

Dan McDermott

International Women’s Day

Speaker’s Book Award and Young Authors Award

Kiwanis Club of Toronto

ORT Toronto Hero Gala

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Enhancing Shareholder Rights Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à accroître les droits des actionnaires

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Canadian Agriculture Literacy Month

Petitions

Dental care

Domestic violence and sexual violence

Inclusiveness

Hospital funding

Gasoline prices

Nanjing Massacre

Services for the developmentally disabled

Health care funding

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

School closures

Opposition Day

School closures

Adjournment Debate

Hydro rates

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 2, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to medical assistance in dying / Projet de loi 84, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: A point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the Minister of International Trade.

Hon. Michael Chan: I seek unanimous consent to have the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change speak a second time to Bill 84,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to medical assistance in dying.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to speak a second time. Do we agree? Agreed.

Further debate. Further debate. Last call for further debate.

The member from Renfrew–Nipisssing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. This is somewhat of a surprise; we expected the subject of the unanimous consent to be the next speaker, but nevertheless, I will fill in the breach here.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 84, the medical-assistance-in-dying piece of legislation. I had hoped to jot down a few notes, but unfortunately, time does not allow it at this point. So I may seem a little bit confused at times, which is probably normal for me.

This is a tremendously emotional debate. We have to think of that when we’re considering the responses that we get from people, not only in the medical community, but in our communities at large. Think of what we’re asking for: Only a few short years ago, if you were to assist someone in a medically assisted death, you would possibly wind up in jail. You would certainly be guilty of a criminal act. The world is changing very quickly, and perhaps too quickly for a lot of people to adjust their own thoughts and their own feelings.

I know that a medical practitioner, who in their view and in their beliefs—when they took the Hippocratic oath, their belief was that it is their job and their professed goal, and what they would do in all circumstances, to preserve life to its fullest and to its natural end. And now we’re changing how we view their role in not only how they treat us medically but in our end time.

Also, people who have spent their lives, for religious or other tenets that they hold truly and dear to their hearts, believing that any intervention that hastens the end of one’s life is wrong—and they have that right to believe that. That’s how I grew up. The teachings in my family would not have supported medical assistance in dying. That was just not what was considered right when I was being raised.

Now we have a change where the Supreme Court has ruled that the right of a person who wishes to have medical assistance in dying because they have determined themselves that to continue living is worse than dying more immediately for them. The court has ruled that they have that right to make that choice and that our society, that our lawmakers, must have laws that support that decision. So that decision has been made by the court, and now the federal government has passed the law that allows for medical assistance in dying.

They also expect now that the provinces will bring in legislation that supports the federal legislation, or at least piggybacks on it, so that we’re all speaking from the same hymnal—no pun intended. That’s what we’re here doing with Bill 84.

But that is only part of the debate. As lawmakers, we pass legislation, we bring rules in, but the emotion is never part of it. The emotion is for the people who are directly involved. The emotion is for the families, the emotion is for the physicians, the nurses and those in the health care community who are going to be part of this. They’re the ones who can be torn. You can remove yourself, in this little cocoon at Queen’s Park, from all of the internal conflicts and strife that someone might feel with legislation like this because we’re just passing the legislation.

It’s all written down in some logical fashion, but we’re not living it. We may be living it at some time, I’m not suggesting that none of us will, but we’re not part of that debate. We’re not part of that tearing apart of what one’s own beliefs might be should they be forced to participate in a medically assisted death.

I have received a huge number of communications from people in my riding asking that the government would heed those feelings, would heed that emotion that is out there; that concern that, “Should I be part of this, I would be going against not only the beliefs that I currently hold, but the beliefs that I was born to hold.” That’s what people are feeling. I think that view has to be respected.

In Alberta they have made the changes in medical assistance in dying and assured that a physician cannot be forced to participate, but also that a physician cannot be forced to refer; that there is—I read it here and I didn’t have time to go over it again—a care coordination service in Alberta, which could easily be established in Ontario, so that the physician doesn’t have to directly refer but refers to a care coordination—a clearing house, so to speak. We could have that in Ontario as well so that a physician, a nurse practitioner or a nurse would not have to conflict themselves or feel that they would have to go home feeling guilty about something that they did.

We understand this is the law now. People have the right to die, should they choose to, if they satisfy all the criteria. The criteria are there, and that’s very necessary that those criteria are there to ensure that they meet the requirements for a medically assisted death.

But you have to ask yourself how you would feel if you were told that you must do something that in the very bottom of your heart you believed was wrong. If you must now do that, but you believe in the bottom of your heart that it is wrong, how would you feel that you were being forced to do that? We do have doctors in the House, so to speak, but I don’t know that any of them are fully practising; otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing their job here. We’re not put into that position, but if we were, how would we feel?

How does this juxtapose with the focus we have on palliative care, to give people dignity in those final moments of death? Our hospice program is a wonderful program. We have to balance those things out so that people are not feeling that they are being torn apart: what the court says versus what their heart and their belief in their god says not to do. So this is something that we really have to look hard and long at before we move ahead with this legislation, and that’s why we need to pass these amendments.

I have had, as I said, countless communications from people in my riding who are begging that something be done to ensure that the conscience rights of people are protected, people who are involved in this. I think that is at the very core of the debate today. This legislation is going to pass. We all understand that. The government has brought it forward. The government has a majority. It’s going to pass. But I, on behalf of all of those people who are torn by this—because the world is changing so fast.

On so many of the things that people believed were absolutely core beliefs, Christian beliefs, only a few short years ago, the courts have said, “I’m sorry, but the world has changed, and that’s not going to be the law anymore.”

But we have to respect the individual rights of people. I’m not even going to have time to get to it, but we’re also reading about where doctors who have actually participated in a medically assisted death are now saying, “Take my name off the list. Once I actually participated in doing that, I became conflicted myself. I no longer believe that I can participate in that, because my conscience no longer allows me to do that.” You have to understand the gut feeling that people have on a bill such as this.

We have an opportunity as a group of legislators here, both government and opposition, to look into our hearts and ask ourselves how we would want to be treated if we were in that position. We’re going to put forward an amendment that protects the conscience rights of people in medically assisted deaths.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It is always difficult to follow my good friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke because he brings such passion to every debate in this House.

Medical assistance in dying, Bill 84, is a difficult bill. It brings us into the discussion of attitudes and morals and how times have changed somewhat over these many years. It wasn’t so long ago, Speaker—when you were a teenager, for example—when we had a different opinion on drinking and driving. It was quite acceptable, and people didn’t wear seat belts in those days. In those days, it was quite common to see parents smoking in an automobile with the windows rolled up and three or four or five kids in the car at the same time, inhaling that second-hand smoke.

We don’t see that very much anymore, and when we see people driving, we expect that they’re wearing seat belts and they’re not impaired. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I think morals have changed somewhat.

It’s the same with same-sex marriage, Speaker. When we were younger, that was something nobody really talked about or nobody really, publicly said, “I support that.” We have changed in our attitudes. It’s the same with the anti-Islamophobia bills at the federal and provincial levels: very strong opinions one way or the other—not always for the right reasons, but very strong opinions. When you have the federal government passing a law and you have the Supreme Court of Canada passing a law that says we must come into compliance, that brings us to the debate today on medical assistance in dying.

I agree with the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: There are other attitudes, other opinions, that we have to take into account when we discuss this bill at committee.

Thank you for your time this morning, Speaker.

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

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to make some comments on the comments from the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I found his comments, frankly, to be quite profound and helpful. His reference to balance was exactly where I think many of my constituents and I come down on this issue.

Choice is difficult if you don’t have choices, and it’s my own belief—and my wife is a family physician, so we have lots of talks about this at home—that a big part of the issue will be to develop a much better palliative care network. That choice perhaps is one that some perceive not to be available at this time, and it would be nice if we could go there.

I’ve had conversations with the minister about this and with many doctors in my riding. I shouldn’t say many; maybe a dozen. That’s many. You normally don’t get a dozen people in on any issue. But I’ve had conversations with folks concerned about the conscience side of this, and there are strong feelings both ways. That’s not surprising, given the nature of the issue before us.

I’ve always believed that people have a responsibility to live and to use their giftedness as best able to make a difference, but that has to be juxtaposed to some other thinking from time to time. I’m pleased to know and be given assurances that Ontario, through our minister, will be developing a care coordination service, in keeping with the comments from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I appreciated his comments. They were well placed, and on this difficult issue, I think we need to move forward with sensitivity but with a recognition that conscience rights are extremely important.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I rise today to give comment on medical-assistance-in-dying legislation that is before us. It is hard to follow the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who is very passionate and eloquent in his delivery on this topic that we are all very much caring about in our ridings.

As many of you know, and I’ll say it again, I nursed for 20 years. I’m happy we’re having this conversation. We are having it because of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government update this legislation; thus we are, as a province. I think we have all heard within our ridings the concerns that are being brought forward about the access to medically assisted dying and the clarity that needs to be brought forward in this piece of legislation.

It is a very emotional issue. I bring up the nursing factor because I saw patients suffering, I saw families suffering, and we say, “Is there a better way?” You have to balance that with the health care professionals that are caring for these individuals—the doctors, the nurses, the RPNs, and now we are introducing not only doctors but nurse practitioners into the mix to assist people with medically assisted dying.

It affects six acts. We have all discussed the palliative care. I have an excellent palliative care wing in Lindsay Ross Memorial Hospital. Not all areas have great access to palliative care. I don’t have residential hospice. I don’t have any, in all of my riding. So we need to give people some more choices.

As the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said, we need to bring amendments forward to protect the conscience rights of people—that is, I think, all in this House, that we are willing to make this legislation as right as it can be.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West and add my two minutes’ worth, in this case, to debate. Today we’re talking about Bill 84, the medical-assistance-in-dying statute law.

I had much more time to speak to this last week, but I’d like to touch on what the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke brought up, because he brought up very valid points. Again, we have to do this. There was a Supreme Court ruling that is making it so that we have to come up with a law around this. But the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke brought up very good points when it comes to the medical professionals and how they feel morally about providing medical assistance in dying.

To that point, last week during my 20 minutes, I brought up that we have to make sure that those who do provide medical assistance in dying—whether that’s a doctor, a nurse, or if there is a pharmacist involved, that there are supports in place for them to be able to mentally deal with the fact that they are providing these services. There have to be supports in place for the families of the patients who may choose medical assistance in dying.

Currently, we have a health care system, specifically the mental health portion, that is really—I wouldn’t even say struggling to keep up. It’s not keeping up with the needs of our communities. Now we are going to have medical professionals who are, maybe, going to be needing to access mental health supports because they provide medical assistance in dying. That’s something that the government side really needs to look at when they’re putting together a bill such as this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his final comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the members from Windsor–Tecumseh, Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and Windsor West for their comments.

If I had an hour it would have been great. There are so many things I would like to touch on, including the emotional tug of war that families go through if they have a family member who is considering opting for medical assistance in dying, and how that can be an experience that can be challenging, and at the end, maybe freeing or whatever. But it’s something that families will need to go through when someone makes that decision. I can’t get into that so much today.

I do want to say, and I thank the member—I know other members on the government side have spoken similarly to myself about the need for some protections for conscience rights. But I think it needs to be extended even for the referral part of it because if someone has to refer directly, then they do feel they are part of the process. They feel they are directly involved. To be able to refer people to a clearing house, so to speak, the care coordination service like they have in Alberta, would remove some of that conscience problem for them.

I cannot speak for the third party—I haven’t had the discussion—but we on our side want to see those conscience rights enshrined in an amendment to change the bill.

I say to my friends on the government side: Please, for those of you who feel this way, do whatever you can to influence the minister and your government to ensure that these changes are made, because your role in this is critical. You are on the governing side. You are the ones who will actually decide whether this amendment passes. Please bring it forward with us.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: This morning, I’m happy to contribute to the debate on this bill, the Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. The debate on this bill can’t be taken lightly. As we know, it’s a very serious issue, because it’s time to talk publicly and openly about medical assistance in dying and the legal framework it would require.

Many members have already identified how this bill has impacted people in their communities in a very personal way. People have told us that they have felt shut out by the approach the government has taken. They tell us that this bill feels rushed and very much like it’s being forced upon them. They know that there has been too little consultation and too few voices contributing to the issue, and that is another missed opportunity by this government to listen to meaningful, thoughtful dialogue by people affected by the bill on this very important issue.

They don’t feel that the government has properly addressed the issue. Ontarians are getting fed up with the “just trust us” or “we know best” approach that the Liberal government has taken time and time again, specifically on issues that people want to be a part of and want to be engaged in. It’s time to allow not just the Liberals to be a part of the conversation and to have their say. Through debate here in this chamber we can foster dialogue within our communities. We need to talk about the tough issues, and nothing is harder to talk about than death—our own death, the death of a family member or our loved ones. The task is daunting and fearful but a necessary one.

Historically, it has been a crime in Canada to assist another person ending his or her own life. Criminal prohibition has applied to circumstances where a physician provides or administers medication that intentionally brings about a patient’s death at the request of the patient. In the case of Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider if criminal prohibition on medical assistance in dying or physician-assisted death violated the charter rights of competent adults, specifically those who suffer intolerably from grievous and untreatable medical conditions, and seek assistance in dying.

The landmark Carter decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 6, 2015, did unanimously determine that an absolute prohibition on medical assistance in dying violated the charter rights of these individuals and was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada also suspended their decision to allow the federal and/or provincial governments to design, should they so choose, a framework to govern the provision of medical assistance in dying, effectively making it legal in Canada on June 6, 2016.

In response, the federal government put forward Bill C-14, which only amends the Criminal Code and limits the right to assisted dying to those whose natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.” The Senate had amended the bill to include those who aren’t terminally ill, but the Commons voted down and rejected that change.

It was reported that the majority of senators were disappointed that Bill C-14 was restrictive and overly narrow in scope. Senator André Pratte was quoted as saying, “I am convinced the government is making a serious and cruel mistake by taking away the right to medically assisted dying from a group of patients, those who are not terminally ill yet suffering terribly.” It’s also worth noting that even those senators who morally opposed medical assistance in dying voted in favour of Bill C-14 because they believed that any law governing assisted death was better than no law at all.

So what does the provincial version actually accomplish? The first thing it does is amend the Coroners Act to mandate that each and every time there is an instance of medical assistance in dying, the physician or nurse practitioner involved in helping the patient must report the details of the assistance and the occurrence to the coroner. The coroner will receive those mandatory reports and will use their discretion to determine if an investigation is warranted.

The bill further mandates that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services will review the coroner’s handling of the registry and investigation process within two years. If we’re reading this correctly, the ministry doesn’t have responsibility to monitor this program until two years after it has been up and running.

Moving on, the second part of the bill amends the Excellent Care for All Act, which is meant to ensure that if a person decides to use medical aid in dying they will not be denied a right or refused a benefit that would otherwise have been allotted to them. It will be important to keep a watchful eye on the reaction of insurance providers as policies and other benefits that people have purchased in the case of death will have to be respected, and whatever benefit the family is entitled to will have to be paid out.

While the intention behind the amendment is that nobody will be denied a right or refused a benefit because their loved one has decided to use medical assistance in dying, it will be important to track any changes to underwriting of policies coming forward.

The bill will also change the Excellent Care for All Act to provide any physicians and nurse practitioners, and those who assist them in the lawful provision of MAID responsibilities, with immunity from reprisals and from bringing them to court. It includes strict regulations around alleged negligence. They will not be insulated from being brought in front of their governing college or court if negligence is suspected or proven.

As the NDP critic for long-term care, we know that advocates and key stakeholders have expressed grave concerns about the legislation excluding long-term-care homes in the province. How will they fare under legislation, and why were their voices ignored?

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, will also be amended so that FIPPA and MFIPPA requests will still be allowed. But any identifying information for a clinician or a facility will be blocked out, so you will not be able to use FIPPA or MFIPPA to find out who provides medical assistance in dying and where medical assistance in dying is provided.

The act changes the Vital Statistics Act and regulations from 1994, and it clarifies that the coroner does not need to sign a medical certificate when somebody decides to end their life through medical assistance in dying, except that the coroner can still choose to investigate that death. So you won’t need a coroner’s certificate or signature when people choose medical assistance in dying.

Lastly, the bill amends the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, WSIB, to clarify that a worker who receives medical assistance in dying is deemed to have died from the injury or disease for which the worker was deemed eligible to receive MAID.

Right now, we have in Ontario a very polarized population when it comes to this bill, because it is like any issue that comes forward in Legislatures or in society: There are always opposite points of view. But what a government’s responsibility should be is to provide a safe space; an area where people have access to get information, to speak freely, and to have those opposing conversations on many of those polarizing issues that we can talk about.

It’s the government’s job to bring those people together so that they can find a common place of understanding where they are on those issues and, hopefully, come to some kind of common ground that can help people who are asking for MAID services.

When we talk about the majority government today, they do have, ultimately, the power to pass this bill and, ultimately, the power in committee to consider amendments that people want to see in this bill. I hope, when we are in committee, when it comes to this discussion, that there will be some consideration and some flexibility and compromise around some of the things that people bring forward, as doctors talk about their conscience and whether or not they want to participate in this process.

I look forward to the comments around this bill. It’s a very important issue that needs to be discussed in today’s times that we’re facing. I’m glad that we are having these tough, difficult conversations; they need to be had. We need to plan for the inevitable situation when people come to that crossroads in their medical circumstance, whether or not they are choosing MAID.

Thank you very much for the time to debate this bill.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member from London–Fanshawe. I really very much appreciated her remarks.

There was something inside her debate where, toward the end, she talked about creating a space. I think it’s critical, when we look at this, since there is some polarization—actually, there’s a bit of polarization on each side, and then a bunch of people in the middle.

The reality is, you’ve got two rights. You’ve got the rights of conscience, which are very important. They are core to our beliefs. They aren’t necessarily just faith and religion. There’s how we view life and what we’re doing here and where we’re going next. There are also the rights of people to access this service. They are two very difficult rights to balance. What we have to do, and I agree, is create or make a space where we can all come through this together because otherwise it’s not going to work.

This is eight months old. It is eight months old, maybe nine. It’s something that’s new to many people, many practitioners. We’re building pathways to act for access. All those pathways aren’t built; all those relationships aren’t there. If we take positions that are too hard on one side or the other, we’re going to eliminate some of those pathways.

I’ll tell you a very quick story. I was speaking to a nurse at the RNAO breakfast last week. She remembered when she first started nursing and there was a cancer patient, and he was screaming in pain—screaming in pain. The doctor would not apply more morphine at the time—this was many years ago—because the patient might become an addict. The patient was going to die.

So our thinking has evolved, and it will evolve. It will evolve as it has with things like palliative sedation and, to the member from London–Fanshawe, we have to create that space where it allows all of us to come through this together.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise to respond to the remarks from my colleague the member for London–Fanshawe about Bill 84, the medical assistance in dying act. One of the points that is a real concern for our community—London West, London–Fanshawe—is around access to palliative care. Access to medical assistance in dying has to be balanced by access to comprehensive, appropriate, adequate palliative care. Our community has a real shortage. We are struggling with a shortage of palliative care beds.

There was an

article from the London Free Press from a year ago, February 2016. The South West Hospice Palliative Care Network released a report showing that London or that the London region only has 26 palliative beds available when the population would call for three times as many beds that would be needed. The experts from the hospice palliative care network say that a city with our population should have about 59 to as many as 78 palliative care beds. The lack of these beds means that we have 1,400 people in our region each year who would rather die at home who end up going to hospital against their wishes, against the wishes of their family.

This is not dying with dignity. This is a disservice to the people that we represent, to the people in this province who need to have access to appropriate end-of-life supports so that they can die in dignity.

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ça me fait plaisir de me lever ici en rapport avec MAID, the medical assistance in dying bill.

I rise to remind us here of the scope of the bill that is limited and that responded to a very difficult issue in our society that confronted the Supreme Court, where you have people who are suffering incredible pain with no hope of recovery who wish to end their life in dignity, to have control over the end of their lives. I think the court was very mindful of ensuring that there would be no pressure on anyone to end their life in a time where they wouldn’t want to pursue it.

The concern of the court was to carve this possibility for all of us eventually to make a decision about how we want to end our life with dignity while ensuring that no vulnerable adult, or even children, would ever be pressed by their family, by their community, or by their despair to end their lives.

In the context of the court, what they were seeking to ensure was that possibility, that possibility that should be offered. Since then, I think we should remind ourselves that the bill that is in front of us is simply about trying to make this a reality for the people who would so choose. In doing so, we have to remind ourselves that the bill must be read in light of our constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience. We have to read within this bill that it is done with protecting the freedom of conscience of nurse practitioners or doctors. There’s nothing in this bill, and there will never be anything in this bill, forcing anyone to do

an act against his or her conscience.

That’s a little bit about where the bill stands. The issue now that confronts us is, in the implementation, can we facilitate and reassure people that indeed that’s the intent of the bill?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the speech this morning by my colleague from London–Fanshawe. She has always brought so much feeling to the debate; it’s about what she feels in her heart. She doesn’t speak as loud as me, but she speaks as well. She covers—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Nobody speaks as loudly as you, Yak.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know nobody is as loud as me. My kids always used to say, “Dad, why are you shouting?” I’d say, “I’m not shouting. That’s just the way I talk.”

To the member from Ottawa–Vanier, while there may be nothing in the bill, there’s nothing in the bill to protect. That’s what we need to see brought into the bill: something to protect those people who are going through this struggle, as everybody will.

I hope that I never face this. I’m not going to face this as a medical practitioner—I know that—but I hope I never face the time in my life where I’m wondering about whether I can live the way I’m living. I’ve got to tell you, I’m not afraid to die. I’m afraid of how I might die, like a lot of people. They don’t want to spend a lot of time suffering in those final days. We all hope for a smooth transition into the next life, if there is one. I believe there is one; some people don’t. That’s what I’m hoping for someday. But not everybody is going to leave in that way.

The member from London talked about our palliative care system. For those people who have been in hospice, and I’ve known many of them, it is a wonderful service, but do we have enough? Do we have enough to give those people that kind of care in those days where they don’t make the other choice? Some people may feel that they have to make the choice for medically assisted death because they don’t feel we have enough of the compassionate care in our system to let them comfortably pass on to the next.

I think there are a lot of things, but I do want to say again that the conscience rights must be protected in an amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): For final comments, I return to the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to thank the members from Ottawa Centre, London West, Ottawa–Vanier and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

The member from Ottawa Centre addressed the fact that we need to have more space where people can feel at liberty to talk freely. I hope when we have those committee hearings on this bill that there will be enough time for that to happen. An important role the government can take in creating that space is by allowing access with notification, time for travel, and how long the time for presentations can be. We don’t want to see it rushed. We want to see those be fulsome deputations, that people can make it there and have that opportunity to contribute. That has been one of the downfalls that people have talked about, that they haven’t had enough time to do that.

The member from London West talked about our hospice palliative care network in London, and she’s quite correct. As the seniors’ critic as well as the long-term-care and home care critic, this is not just a seniors’ issue; it’s not an age issue. This can happen to anyone at any time in their lives, right? It’s a very tragic thing that it does happen when it isn’t expected. When that occurs, people want to have, I think, the choice, and family members want to have the opportunity perhaps to talk about that and whether it’s an option or not. It’s a very deep-down, core issue that we have to face whether we want to or not. It’s going to happen.

The member from Ottawa–Vanier talked about how in this bill there’s nothing forcing professionals to act on this bill, and that’s good. I hope that is the case, which I’m sure it is. But we want to have a system where if they choose that, what’s the option for the patient? How do they deliver that service in the end?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I just want to commend my colleagues from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and from London–Fanshawe. I think they both elevated this debate in a most thoughtful way. I always feel very proud to be a member of this House when I’m following speakers like my two colleagues, who I think made a very important contribution to this discussion. I’m feeling very privileged to speak to this, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to talk about this because I think my life experience has given me a much different perspective on this than most others. What concerns me most about this legislation isn’t that the legislation isn’t good; I think it is. It’s not that it shouldn’t be implemented; I think it should be, and I think we should be respectful of the courts. I think there has been a healthy debate around the issues of conscience for health care practitioners. But there’s an issue that I would like to try and explore a bit because I think, going forward, the context of this is going to be very important.

When I turned 20, AIDS was not a word. It was one of those shocking moments in my life where something was about to happen that none of us understood, and it was going to change the trajectory of my life, my sense of well-being, my fundamental politics, my spirituality and all of my belief systems.

By the end of my twenties, on my 30th birthday, I remember marking it by going to a funeral for a 43rd friend of mine, yet another gay man who died of AIDS in his twenties. I left my career. I went and volunteered and started an AIDS clinic in Winnipeg. Eventually that led to politics. The moment of my life I will never forget was trying to deal with this crisis without support.

The provincial government had refused to give the clinic that we were doing—it was a volunteer clinic—a billing number, and the federal government of the day, the Prime Minister, who I knew and respected, Prime Minister Mulroney, and friends of mine—because I knew many members of the cabinet—said that AIDS was a moral issue, not a health issue, and there would be no funding.

That and the fact that it was gay men who were dying totally changed the context and the kinds of choices and resources that were available, and the dynamic that I saw play out impacted at a societal level and limited the choices that people had about living or dying.

I think that we have to recognize, as the member from London–Fanshawe said, that this often isn’t people in their advanced years trying to figure out how to close out their life with dignity. Another pandemic could come along at any moment. Things happen that surprise us. I don’t think anyone of us in this House in the 2000 election thought a year later we would be in the worst global recession in our lifetime. That changed all of our agendas politically. We had to deal with something that came from outside our country.

In the next few years, climate change is going to kill more people probably than any other event. It’s going to create all kinds of issues globally around fairness, human rights and migration.

I remember the moment that changed my life was when my friend Jim, who I had been cooking meals for every week because there was no health care supports for people with HIV; there was no funding at the time—grabbed me by the face—he was very frail, he was about 25, a very athletic young guy, a nurse—and said, “What are you doing with your life, Glen?” I said, “Jim, I work for the post office.” He said—as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said—“What’s your life about?” The member from Ottawa South said that. He said, “If you died right now, what would they put on your gravestone?

You worked for the post office?” I said, “Jim, there’s nothing wrong with working for the post office.” He said, “Well, what do you want to do?” I said, “I want to be a father. I’d love to be a city councillor. I love city stuff and city building. I’d like to see gay and lesbian human rights. I’d like to see our clinic properly funded and recognized. I’d like us to see a pride day.” He said, “Well, why aren’t you doing that?” I said, “I’m gay. It’s Winnipeg. It’s 1987. Harvey Milk got shot 11 months after—in San Francisco.

There are not a lot of gays in this town and it’s a very conservative town.” He said, “Why aren’t you trying these things?” He said, “I only have a short time, probably, to live. What are you doing with your life?”

I remember that profoundly, because a week later when I came back on a Wednesday to cook his meal, he had passed away. He had left a note and he said, “Just do it.” As a result of that I went out and tried—I wanted to be a parent; that was one of the other things on my list—and within five years, which is what he gave me as a deadline, all of those things had happened. At that time, I thought I was HIV-positive like all of my friends and I would never be standing here today, I’d never have made it past 50.

From the intimacy of closing out his life over several months, I discovered my own reason for being alive and found the courage to take on risks I never could. If it wasn’t for Jim, I probably would have lived my life hiding in the shadows, living my life for the things I was afraid of and the people I feared, not living my life for the people I love and the things I hope for. I think if you can dance in the sunshine and not hide in the shadows, that’s an extraordinary thing.

But I discovered that amongst my friends who were gay at that time, those who were living in fear often chose to end their lives. I remember the most difficult job I had was often sitting in the living room of people with a young man trying to explain to their parents, providing support in a family reconciliation, trying to explain to mom and dad—it was usually mom who was present; dad often left or didn’t come—that their son had a terminal illness and that they were gay. I would say, sadly, that almost half the time, the parents, usually the father, asked the son to leave and disowned them at that time.

We took this young man away from his family, and that factor, not actually having access to the people you love—for a young man, breaking your relationship with your father, whom you love—was so destructive that I saw so many of my friends give up or find creative ways to end their lives.

There’s social context to this. Many people in racialized minorities have challenges. All the people who have issues with addiction, who live in poverty, who are street-involved are often at that intersection of the kinds of illnesses—they’re often younger in life, living in poverty, confronting these with less supports. My concern is that we have, when we implement this, a broad social context. We understand that some minorities, people in different levels of poverty, people with different faiths and different communities are going to react to this.

Whether or not we’re talking about ending your life in the context of a pandemic or doing so gracefully in old age, with dignity—they have profoundly different contexts.

How governments respond on human rights, especially today in North America, when we’re seeing a greater level of bullying and indifference—and there seems to be permission out there to make other people “other” and to create some very destructive attitudes about each other. We’ve always grown up—and every political party in this House has worked to knit Canadians together, to celebrate diversity. Whether you’re a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, I think you hold that. But this idea that everyone grows up with self-esteem—the self-esteem of a person.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, one of my dear friends. I was in my mid-twenties, working at the clinic when he came in. He was about 17 at the time. He had basically given up and decided to end his life. By some miracle, he didn’t. About two years after this, he had sort of tried to figure this out, and he was very sick. He had cytomegalovirus and he as looking at losing his sight. He had pneumocystis pneumonia twice. The doctors had said if he were sick again—he had very little reason to go on, and he was terrified of dementia.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked about when you want to die, it’s not a fear of death—though many people are afraid to die; I’ve seen that in my life, working on the streets. But you want to die with dignity and you want to die intact. My mother always says the thing she’s most afraid of is Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t want to lose her mental faculties. Those are different choices for different people.

But in this case, by some miracle, about six months later, the cocktails came out. What was completely unexpected was a medical breakthrough on AIDS that allowed people to live. This young fellow is now in his forties and doesn’t live very far from here, and we often talk about that. That decision that he made—he came so close to ending his life, having no idea.

On the other hand, the other things that people have to navigate that we often don’t talk about are double-blind trials for drugs, the power of pharmaceuticals, and sometimes the egos of researchers. I had many friends who died trying double-blind studies, discovering what I never knew about, which was a drug rebound effect, which they were never properly informed about. Most of people died within a month or two after trying these drugs because the unintended consequences of the drugs were there. Just the choices you have to make if you decide to live are so complex, and the knowledge that you have to have about interventions.

I’m just hoping, as we go forward, Mr. Speaker—and I support this law—that we actually look at this from the perspective of the person making that choice, whether they’re Catholic or agnostic or whatever they are, whatever they need—that we actually realize that and that those choices don’t follow equally on everyone. People who are privileged, who have high self-esteem in our society are more empowered to make choices. There are fewer choices for people who are often in crisis or in a minority. I just ask for that thoughtfulness, that we build that into our plans and implementation.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for his comments today. He talked about when he ended up recognizing the needs of that person. We get that, and that’s why the law is there. We also have to recognize the needs of the other people.

If I can take us back in history to 1962, to Canada’s last hanging, last execution. The tenor of the day of the public at that time was, “We want capital punishment. We want those people to be hung.” But somebody had to be the one who pulled the lever on those gallows. Would you want to force someone who couldn’t do it, where it was against their will to pull that lever? The answer is no. The answer is no.

I appreciate the personal stories of the minister. I myself have a brother who wasted away and died of AIDS. I have two brothers, including my twin, who died by their own hand. We recognize not everybody is going to die in palliative care in dignity, but we need to do what we can to ensure that is an option available to them. I say to the minister—and you’re a member of the cabinet, not just a backbencher over there—I didn’t hear you talk about—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no, but you get to meet on Wednesday mornings and talk about these things. This is crucial. This is crucial: that the decision in that room comes back to this Legislature with protection for those people of the population of this country who, in their good conscience, in their beliefs, could not be the one to pull the lever on the gallows. We have to protect them too.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to thank the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for his eloquence and his honesty in sharing his personal experiences with this issue. As the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke just said, we all bring personal experiences that shape the way that we view the issues that we debate here in this Legislature.

I saw my aunt, a very vibrant woman in her early sixties, felled by ALS. She had the diagnosis in April. She passed away in November. At the time, the only option for her to end her life was to have the feeding tube withdrawn. The protracted process, the agony that this caused to the family while her pain was being managed and the feeding tube was withdrawn was unconscionable. The Supreme Court has ruled that people deserve access to medical assistance in dying.

At the same time, our job as legislators is to balance the concerns of all of the people that we represent in this province to ensure that there are opportunities, that there are safe spaces for dialogue to occur for the two sides, which we see right now are highly polarized, to reach some kind of accommodation and consensus about how we move forward in a way that respects physicians’ rights to conscience and also ensures that patients have access to high-quality end-of-life care as well as medical assistance in dying.

This is a very sensitive and challenging issue that we are dealing with here in this Legislature. We have an opportunity to do the right thing by the people that we represent, and I hope we will do that.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to respond to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I’m glad that we had the UC to let him speak to the bill today because he brought something to the debate that’s very important that we haven’t talked about as much: the people, the personal experience of the person who wants the service or feels like they want to take their own life.

One of the things that always sticks in my head is isolation. Isolation is the most common underlying cause of bad health. Being alone, not having access to other people, not having access to the resources that you need—that’s a scary thing, when we think about how we’re going forward.

Conscience rights: I believe in the rights of conscience. No one is going to be able to pull that lever; they’re not going to be forced to do that.

What’s at debate here is how we create the pathways to ensure that people have access to the service and that people can have their rights of conscience. It’s not an easy thing to do, but we have to find a way to do that. I do not believe that inserting competing amendments on either one of those in the bill will be a way to satisfy that. I believe there are other ways of doing that, and we’re working on that. We’ve expressed that in debate; we’ve talked about care coordination. I believe there are ways of doing that.

It’s critical for us to understand that, because if we go into a polarized debate, where we have two groups that are polarized on either side, and we pick one over the other, it’s not going to work really well.

This whole thing is going to evolve. I’ll repeat again: It’s eight months old, and it’s incumbent upon us, as legislators, to try to create that space that will help us all come through this together.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I appreciate the respectful tone that many members have had in their speeches, not just today but in the other days that we’ve debated this bill.

I think the member from Ottawa South, who just preceded me, mentioned that this will evolve. Well, more and more in this debate, we’re hearing from people in our communities about what they would like to see in Bill 84.

I mentioned last week a physician who came to see me, Dr. Drijber, who the member for Haldimand–Norfolk and I share. He came with a particular perspective, as a palliative care doctor, that I think we need to have more of in this debate.

I, like many members, appreciate the feelings in our community about support for palliative care. We just had the 34th annual 30-hour palliative care telethon in my riding; it happened at the end of February. They set a new record: They raised locally, just in a 30-hour period, $250,947. I want to thank Bruce Wylie, the host, and all of the team. That’s the importance of palliative care in my riding.

In terms of this, nobody in the government is going to be surprised at what I say. I said it after the hour-long lead that the member for Ottawa South had as the parliamentary assistant, I said it when Minister Hoskins spoke, and I’ll say it again today to the Minister of the Environment: We have to see that this government is willing to put an amendment forward in this bill to deal with conscience rights. We want to see it. I personally feel that if we don’t see it, then we should table a private member’s bill that puts it in. That’s my personal feeling.

I do think that rather than words like “evolve,” we need to see this government take our comments and our communities’ comments seriously. So I’d like to see that commitment from this government this morning, that they will put an amendment in this bill to deal with conscience rights.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for final comments.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the members for Leeds–Grenville, Ottawa South, London West and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I just have a couple of points, because I agree with what you said.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that as this gets implemented—and to the point that the member for Leeds–Grenville just made—if we are actually doing this in a way such that the affirmation of life and the forces to choose life are as strong as or stronger than the ones that lead to the conclusion and end of life, being respectful of the dignity that the member for London West says everyone should have—I’m not sure how you do that.

There are many double-edged swords here. In the days when we had very limited health care supports, we had physicians who would not provide care for people with AIDS and HIV on moral grounds or for fear of infection.

My partner is a nurse. We would often talk about your responsibility to take care of people. I was in hospitals where people had biohazard signs on their door and literally had to crawl out of their bed to get their food, because people were too afraid. A lot of the people who were providing care were other gay men, because we just assumed we were positive, and we weren’t afraid of taking care of that.

We have had Zika, AIDS, Lyme disease—now going north—West Nile and SARS. The possibility of a health crisis that could bring on a different type of context in the next 10 years is at least as likely, with climate change and the movement of viruses and some of the ecological imbalances, and we may yet again confront in the not-too-distant future another health crisis that is hard to imagine right now, with some catastrophic pieces.

But it’s an issue of conscience, and it is complex on both sides. It is our ability to care for each other and affirm life as an underpinning that I think will get us to where we need to go. Hopefully, we won’t polarize that debate, because I don’t think any of us really have clear answers to those things.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure to be able to rise today and offer a few comments on Bill 84. In the context of the last few speakers, I am going to respond to some of the issues that were raised there before I look at some of the technicalities of the bill.

I think what I get from the comments that have been made here this morning is that we are struggling with a fundamental difference between the mechanics of process and the emotional realities of the circumstances that surround the bill. So I think we need to be sure that we are not confusing those two things, that you have a piece of legislation that provides and recognizes the process, the mechanical process—who is in, who is out; when you can talk to a coroner; when people must come to some certainty on what they’re going to do—and then the unexpected consequences of this, which is of course the emotional.

I think it’s almost humorous, the way in which people generally think about their lives and the fact that they don’t go on forever. Somehow, that message escapes people. I see it in a number of ways. My husband’s family has always had places in this local country cemetery, and there are about three generations, at least, that are there. When I tell people that he is on the cemetery board, it’s like, “Why would do you that?” “Well, because you’re going to need it one day.” And people are like, “Oh, oh, much too morbid.” We kind of kick the tires and say, “Well, we have also bought our plots.” “You’ve what?!”

There’s a fundamental negation of this reality in the world in which we live. Certainly, if you were to watch any television, you would know that there are millions of people engaged in the business of keeping you looking good and maybe scaring off the reality that will come to all of us.

I think that this piece of legislation has concentrated, as it should, on the mechanics, but we as legislators have to remember the human side of this and what kinds of benefits we must put in place that would recognize the difficulties that people face in this period of time.

I’ve always said that I want to find the ice floe. That takes care of you and everything else, and off you go. But not everybody has that kind of a view towards this, and many don’t have a view until it’s very late in the process.

If nothing else happens in this bill, the fact that people are now discussing the questions around dying, the questions around medical assistance in dying—because it jolts you; you actually have to think about it and what kind of reaction you would have—I think that is one of the most important parts of this bill.

But the other one is to differentiate between the mechanics and the emotional, and the realities of the emotional—the surprises, quite frankly, that come with the emotional that you are unaware of.

I think it’s very difficult, when you look at this, medical assistance in dying, that you have an entire body of medical experts whose whole career has been centred around helping people who are ill. It’s a Ministry of Health, and so there is the problem that each individual person who is involved in the process of making you feel better and making you better all of a sudden has to look at a different approach. My sister, who is a retired nurse, made that comment to me, but I know that it’s shared by many medical practitioners of all different areas of this. There’s an immediate internal contradiction for them.

I think there is also a considerable concern over what kinds of opportunities exist. I think one of the areas that we should be looking at more carefully is the Alberta method, where the question of being party to something that you don’t want to be party to is dealt with in a very public way. I think the process that Alberta has is one that we have an opportunity to look at at this point. Here, Alberta has adopted an alternative to effective referral.

Certainly, there has been much discussion around the issue of effective referral and whether it actually is a way that can make it more difficult for the health care providers as a question of conscience. So we have to look at other jurisdictions.

Alberta offers care-coordinated service. Patients will have access to a single point of contact for all end-of-life options. I think that also helps in creating a more realistic response to the issues around medically assisted. These services, then, connect patients to health care providers who can best meet their unique needs. In Alberta, they advise patients to speak with their normal health care provider about receiving medical assistance in dying. If the physician does not provide this service, they can contact the Medical Assistance in Dying Care Coordination Service through telephone or by email.

It seems to me that this will do a number of things. One is to make access available very easily in an initial and kind of coordinated way. At the same time, you’re finding out, but you are not giving away your own emotional sensitivities on this issue. You are not having to talk to somebody face to face with a topic that you are uncomfortable with. As well, this protects the patient’s conscience rights, as well as ensuring a patient will be able to access the services they’re requesting.

In my opinion, Ontario’s legislation needs this kind of balance. It’s a very delicate topic, and there is no way to come to a conclusion that will make every person happy. But I think the important thing is that the arm’s-length process that Alberta has introduced reduces the level of emotion that is going to naturally be part of any conversation. It’s like phoning Telehealth. It’s sort of an anonymous process where you can find something out. People need that anonymity when they are first faced with the question of whether they want to seek this as a solution.

In Ontario, I think we have an opportunity to create the kind of balance that appears to be in the Alberta model and, in that way, we’ve created a system which has the services available for those who wish, and it does not force the medical practitioner into being on this side of the argument or on this side of the argument. There is no question about the question of an argument or the question of an issue that doesn’t respect everyone.

I think it’s very important for us to look at it in that context and remember that emotion is very, very strong and it needs room to come to terms. People need to come to terms with the emotional side before they can adequately look at what are the technical things they should be dealing with in making a decision.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member.

Visitors

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh on a point of order.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On a point of order. I know after the break we’ll be honouring Canadian women in military service but I just want to draw your attention to a couple of visitors in the east gallery. The president of the Ontario command of the Royal Canadian Legion, Brian Weaver, is here and I believe so is the first vice-president, Sharon McKeown. Thank you very much and welcome, again, to Queen’s Park.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): That is not a point of order, but in this Legislature we do like to recognize our guests.

It is now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I’ll try to right a wrong; yesterday, I think I had a mispronunciation. On behalf of Mr. Oosterhoff, the member for Niagara West–Glanbrook, I want to introduce guests of page Luca DiPietro: his parents, Franca and Frank DiPietro, and his sister Daria. They’re in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park my neighbour and constituency assistant, Susan Wigg. She’s here today for our tribute to women in the military, as she served 35 years in the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, retiring with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 2016. She was part of the first class of women at the Royal Military College in 1980, where she would later serve as director of cadets. She also represented Canada through a tour of Afghanistan, and four years in NATO’s strategic headquarters.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature members of the Canadian Armed Forces from HMCS York, the Lorne Scots, 32 Service Battalion, Queen’s York Rangers, 32 Signal Regiment, Queen’s Own Rifles, Canadian Forces College and the 4th Canadian Division headquarters.

Representatives are also here today from the Royal Canadian Legion, St. John Ambulance, the Royal Canadian Military Institute, and the Commissionaires Great Lakes.

I’m also proud to welcome to the Legislature some female veterans from the Second World War: Helen Kerr, June Rudd, Clara Bateman, Sybil McClure, Beatrice Armstrong, Margaret Orr and Ethel Wood. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On behalf of New Democrats and our leader, Andrea Horwath, we would like to welcome all those who served in past theatres of war, the Second World War on, especially those women who gave selflessly through that entire process. As a former member of the armed forces, I’d like to welcome you here.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome a guest from Hearst this morning, Mayor Roger Sigouin. Thanks for joining us.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, as a former legislative page myself, I’m very honoured to recognize the page captain today from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex: Anellah Orosz. Her mother and brother are here, Nikki and Deklan; as well as her grandparents Natalie and William; and her aunt and cousin, Natalie and Daveigh Fletcher. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome the many workers who are here today from OPSEU for social services day, and a special welcome to Nathan and Leah. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to introduce Nicholaus Schalfhauser, who is a legislative page this session for Halton. Nicholaus is today’s page captain as well. His family is here to be with him today. Welcome to Julie Wilson, Peter Schalfhauser, Jonathan Schalfhauser, Jennifer Grigor and Evan Grigor. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I just want to welcome members of OPSEU who were here today to meet with me to talk about the importance of social services in our communities: Brenda Malott, Heather Fathi and Roz Gunn. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to welcome all of the folks from military who are here with us today, being from Northumberland–Quinte West, the biggest military instalment in my riding. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I had breakfast this morning with Deb Gordon from Sarnia–Lambton, from OPSEU. I would also like to welcome Clarke Eaton from OPSEU.

Up in the east gallery there is the president of the Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, Brian Weaver. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Liz Sandals: On behalf of my colleague the MPP for Mississauga South, the Minister of Finance, I would like to introduce the guests of another page captain, Connor Ludwig. Visiting Connor today we have grade 8 teacher Mrs. Westwater and all of Connor’s classmates.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m really honoured today to have Kathy Mann from our riding and also her mother, Margaret Orr, who is 93 and is here for the war brides tribute. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais être capable de reconnaître M. Roger Sigouin, le maire de Hearst, qui est ici avec nous aujourd’hui.

Mr. Arthur Potts: On behalf of the Minister of Finance and his constituents, I’d like to welcome the girls school Holy Name of Mary. They’re here for question period today. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I would like to welcome Heather Derks, her son Jackson and daughter Heron, who are here to stop the closure of Sparta Public School.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have one last introduction. A former member is with us in the gallery: from Burlington in the 40th Parliament, Jane McKenna. Welcome.

I would like to recognize the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock on a point of order.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I believe you will find there is unanimous consent that each party be permitted to speak for up to five minutes to pay tribute to the women who served in the military in the Second World War.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed. I will turn to the third party.

Women veterans

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is my great privilege to rise today on behalf of the Ontario NDP caucus to pay tribute to the often under-recognized contributions of the courageous women who served in the military during World War II. On the eve of International Women’s Day, it is fitting that we honour these remarkable woman veterans—heroes—from the Second World War.

In particular, I want to talk a bit about June Rudd, Helen Kerr and Clara Bateman. These trail-blazing women in uniform paved the way not only for Canadian women in the military, but for the struggle for women’s equality in Canada and the achievement of women’s rights.

Canadian women first contributed to the military during World War I as nurses tending to the sick and wounded. Their wartime service and sacrifice, in addition to political considerations related to support for the war effort, led to the federal government’s decision in 1917 to grant suffrage to women working in the armed forces and the wives, mothers and sisters of soldiers overseas.

During World War II, Canadian women successfully lobbied the government to form military organizations for women, to allow them to play an active role in the war. In 1941-42, the military was forever changed with the creation of women’s forces, allowing women to serve our country in uniform for the first time in the air force, army and navy.

The war years saw more than 50,000 Canadian women serving as transport drivers, cooks, clerks, typists, stenographers, messengers, mechanics, parachute riggers, wireless operators, intelligence officers, weather observers, pharmacists, photographers and more. World War II women veterans fixed airplanes. They flew Spitfires. They broke codes and they managed offices.

Yet despite this broad array of roles and despite the significance of these contributions, women’s involvement in military efforts was essentially predicated on the availability of men. Women were allowed to fill military roles not because of the skills they brought to these positions, but because men were not available. Recruitment advertisements reinforced this devaluing of women’s skills. The armed forces advertised for women to serve so that men may fight. The air force advertised for women to serve so that men might fly.

Women in World War II struggled for equality in a military system that applied different criteria to their eligibility, limited their job opportunities once they had joined and paid them lower wages. Initially, military women earned two thirds of a man’s salary, with the rationale that it took three women to replace two men. This was later increased to four fifths, the difference justified this time by the fact that women did not serve at the front.

It was not until later in the century that military women were valued for their own skills and contributions instead of as replacement workers for men, when the government made the decision in 1965 to make permanent the employment of women in the Canadian military.

This morning, we are recognizing the pioneering women from World War II who helped open the door for the many women who served in later conflicts and peacekeeping missions and who now make up 15% of today’s Canadian Forces.

The first is June Rudd. Like many young British women during the war, June Rudd joined the Women’s Royal Naval Service, or Wrens, in 1943. At her first station near Liverpool, she was responsible for typing and staffing the telephone. Later, she trained in coding and ciphering for naval communication. At Southwick House, the manor house requisitioned as the advance command post for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, she was involved in planning for Operation Overlord. In the months after D-Day, June would then follow the Allies through liberated Europe.

The Crestwood School website posts video interviews of June sharing her incredible war stories with a grade 9 student. June recounts her involvement in the liberation of Paris and describes riding through the French country with a young boy who borrowed a plane without permission.

June has maintained many of the friendships that she developed during the war and belongs to the Naval Association of Toronto, where she is held in the highest esteem. June, we thank you and salute you for your service.

Helen Kerr grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan and served as a first lieutenant in the Canadian Army Medical Corps during the Second World War. Her training as a nurse at an Ontario mental hospital was put to the test while tending to wounded Allied soldiers at the front in France, and later in army hospitals in England.

Following the war, she worked as an RN in London and in Toronto, and was recently recognized with the French Legion of Honour medal in recognition of her service in France. Helen Kerr remains an active member of Pickering Branch 606 of the Royal Canadian Legion and a women’s auxiliary volunteer. Helen, we thank you and salute you for your service.

Finally, Clara Bateman was born in England and enlisted in the Wrens at age 17, after convincing her sister to forge their mother’s name on the enrolment papers. She served as a clerk in the supply department and was stationed at HMS Daedalus, one of the primary shore airfields. There, she has vivid memories of the tanks, equipment and personnel that filled the station during D-Day preparations. She was recently awarded a Royal Canadian Legion Branch 228, Stirling, life membership in recognition of 45 years of dedicated service to the branch. Clara, we thank you and salute you for your service.

I am so proud today to recognize these three brave women and all the women who served, to honour their sacrifice and to celebrate their contribution to advancing the rights of women to full and equal participation in society, on our front lines and around the world. Thank you.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: This week, we celebrate the accomplishments of women, and I’m honoured to pay tribute to the 10,000 women who are part of our Canadian Forces. Many may be surprised to learn that women first served in the Canadian military during the 1885 North-West Rebellion, when 12 women served in military hospitals.

While on occasion men would lie about their age to enlist in the military, women had to at times lie about their gender and cross-dress in order to be able to serve in military missions. Imagine being so compelled to give the ultimate in public service that you would lie about your gender. Just imagine that resolve for a moment. A woman’s commitment and determination to serve knows no bounds when you consider the additional internal and external obstacles of all kinds that they face once they are there.

Women in the military, past and present, continue to break ground for women’s advancement, not only in Canada but in every region in the world.

I acknowledge trailblazers in our Canadian Forces, such as Wafa Dabbagh, the first Muslim woman to wear a head covering while serving in the Canadian Forces, or Kingston’s own Dorothy Hector, one of the first 32 women who attended Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston. I have always been inspired by my good friend Susan Long-Poucher, who became the lieutenant commander of HMCS Cataraqui in 2009.

These women provide critical intelligence; they serve on the front lines as medical personnel and in combat missions; and they support humanitarian causes as peacekeepers. Just like the men that they work alongside, they put public safety, and the safety and well-being of others, above all else.

We recognize their efforts past and present. We know they would like to be acknowledged for their accomplishments over their gender, but this week, we also acknowledge women in the military for their profound and inspirational legacy that they leave behind for others.

We are indebted to you for your service, your fortitude and your leadership. Thank you.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m honoured to stand today in the House, on behalf of our Progressive Conservative caucus, to pay tribute to the remarkable women who served our country during the Second World War.

We are humbled by the fact that we owe our vibrant parliamentary democracy in no small part to the sacrifices made by Canadian women and men in uniform. Indeed, we owe them our very lives and freedoms.

Women were involved in the war effort from the very beginning. During both world wars, women served an integral role as nurses, both overseas and at home.

Nearly 3,000 women served as nursing sisters, or “bluebirds,” during the First World War. Not only did they serve on the front lines as part of the Canadian Army Medical Corps, but the bluebirds were also integral to paving the way for women’s suffrage in Canada. In 1917, an exception to Canadian law was made that allowed the bluebirds stationed in Europe to vote. They became the first Canadian women to cast ballots, a year before women across Canada were granted the same right in 1918. This year, 100 years on, we commemorate this milestone of civic engagement for women as a hallmark of our democracy.

The Second World War saw women serving in other military capacities for the very first time. The women’s division of the Royal Canadian Air Force was established in 1941 and was quickly followed by the Canadian Women’s Army Corps and Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service.

Tens of thousands of women served in the military. Their contribution was crucial to the Canadian and Allied victory in 1945, and their courage is exemplified by the veterans we are lucky to have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today.

Let me tell you a few of their stories. Clara Bateman served in the Wrens, the Women’s Royal Naval Service, during the war. Clara enlisted, as was said, underage at 17, having hidden her true age from recruiters. She was stationed at HMS Daedelus, a Royal Naval Air Station at Lee-on-Solent in England, where she worked as a clerk in the supply department. She remembers the incredible busyness in the lead-up to D-Day, as the base overflowed with tanks, equipment and people.

There is also Helen Kerr, who served as a first lieutenant in Canadian army hospitals during the war. Mrs. Kerr was just 25 years old when Canadian forces landed on Juno Beach. That day, 359 Canadians lost their lives, and First Lieutenant Helen Kerr was one of those sent to provide care to the wounded.

I also would like to take this opportunity to remember Billy Pickard, a World War II veteran in my riding in Haliburton. Billy was one of only 20 postal workers stationed in Europe during the war. She and her 19 colleagues ensured that families were able to communicate with their loved ones in the service. I thank Billy for her service, as well as her dedicated contribution to the Haliburton Legion for many years.

We also have June Rudd, Sybil McClure, Beatrice Armstrong, Margaret Orr and Ethel Wood, as well as many of their family members, with us today. Thank you for sharing this moment with us here in the Legislature.

It’s wonderful that we are joined by many women who are currently serving in our military and members of our beloved Royal Canadian Legions across the province. Thank you to the sailors, soldiers and aviators. You are carrying on a proud legacy.

On behalf of the entire PC caucus, I offer my sincere gratitude and admiration to all the women veterans here today. Thank you for your service to your country. Each and every one of you is a true Canadian hero.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their sincere and heartfelt comments. My personal comment is that women, along with men, have had to see and do things that no one should have to do, and you’ve carried that with such grace over all these years. I call it the black spot, the dark spot, on your soul that you’ve carried for us. We are indebted to you forever. Thank you.

Oral Questions

School closures

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Simcoe county and my hometown of Barrie have been hit hard by this government’s attitude towards small-town schools. The village of Port McNicoll lost their school. Waubaushene lost both their Catholic and public elementary schools. Barrie Central closed its doors.

This Liberal government needs to re-evaluate its priorities before any more communities are hurt. Will this government agree with our call for an immediate moratorium on school closures?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me begin by saying that I understand how difficult it is to manage facilities, to manage schools in an environment where, in many parts of the province, we’re seeing declining enrolment. It’s a fundamental challenge for school boards.

Let me say secondly that I believe in school boards. I believe in school boards as important parts of the democratic system in communities. In fact, school boards were elected bodies in Ontario before municipal councils. They were the first entities that communities came together to elect. So I believe that school boards are fundamental in making decisions locally.

Mr. Speaker, when we came into office, we actually put a moratorium on school closures because of the ravages of the previous government on school closures around the province. There were hundreds of schools being closed, and we put a moratorium on it.

I’ll have more to say about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier. I spoke at the final delegation meeting last week, before Upper Canada trustees decided the fate of one in four elementary schools in my riding. I was so impressed by the alternatives put forward by school communities and the offers of support from municipalities and businesses. It shows what’s possible when our rural schools are seen as a unique and valuable asset, not a liability.

My communities have plans to keep their rural schools viable. It’s bad enough this government is asking parents, mayors and business leaders to fix the broken education system. Will the Premier support a moratorium on school closures and give these great ideas a chance to work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite is going to be very pleased at the letter that the Minister of Education sent out yesterday to boards.

There are situations around the province where a community has gone through a process and there is a plan for a consolidation or a closure of a school and a new school being built, where actually things are moving ahead very well.

There are other situations where there hasn’t been the kind of consultation between boards or with the municipality that should have happened and that the ministry has, for some time, expressed a very clear preference for.

The letter went out to directors yesterday. What we’re saying is, where those conversations haven’t happened, where the school boards haven’t had a conversation either with each other—because as you know we have four systems in the province, Mr. Speaker—or where the municipalities and the boards have not spoken, we need to allow the opportunity for that to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. The requirements of northern and rural schools are very different than those of urban centres. These schools have small populations, and when they’re put under review and compared to larger institutions, they often fail to match up. Blanket regulations created by this government put these schools at a clear disadvantage. Rural schools fall outside of the government’s mould and are at high risk of closure. They’re smaller and much farther apart, and because of their locations, these buildings don’t just serve as schools, they’re also our community hubs.

My question to the Premier is: Will she give northern schools the unique attention they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The hundreds of millions of dollars that we have had in place for a number of years to actually support northern and rural schools, to allow them to weather the buffeting of declining enrolment, were put in place exactly for that, Mr. Speaker.

What I want folks to know now is that we recognize that there are some situations where boards haven’t had enough of an opportunity to work together, or boards haven’t had enough of an opportunity to work with municipalities to come up with some of the community solutions that we know are possible.

Right now, there are 4,900 publicly funded schools in Ontario. Only 39 of those—or 37, I think—

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s 39.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —so 39; only 39 of those are collaborations between boards. We think there can be more of those, and we want to give boards some time to develop those collaborations.

School closures

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the Premier: When I took office three years ago, this government offered to find creative ways to keep our schools open. One of their repeated suggestions was to turn our schools into community hubs, make them the heart of their communities. Unfortunately, they never followed through, and as a result entire communities are being decimated.

In my riding of Thornhill, Stornoway Crescent Public School has been slated to close, even though young families are moving into the area. The Premier needs to admit that these constant announcements of school closures force panicked communities to huddle together in protest. Are protest rallies outside our schools really what this Premier had in mind as community hubs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, for a number of years we have had in place, through the Ministry of Education, policy guidelines to encourage the conversation between school boards and between school boards and municipalities, and in some situations that has happened. I will just say, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes an MPP can play a very constructive role in bringing people to the table and establishing those conversations. That can be a very, very important role for school trustees and MPPs.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You know, a Premier can even do a better job, so institute the moratorium and get the conversation started.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. Thank you.

A wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So there are situations where those collaborations have happened, but there are some situations where there has been a reluctance, either on the part of a particular school board or a municipality. That needs to happen going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary question? The member for Whitby–Oshawa.

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Premier. Many constituents in my riding are concerned as schools in their local communities are being considered for closure by this Liberal government; in Durham region in particular, Epsom Public School in Scugog and Thorah Central Public School in Brock. I’m hearing from parents that this government’s school closure review process is a sham. The Ontario Alliance Against School Closures has said that this review process is just a democratic facade and that parents are being heard but not listened to.

Will the Premier put in place a moratorium on rural school closures and stop ignoring these parents’ concerns?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I put a challenge out to every MPP in this Legislature: A letter has gone out from the Minister of Education and from the Minister of Rural Affairs to say to school boards, “You have an opportunity now. We have a community hubs adviser. There are conversations that can happen in communities.” I say to all MPPs that where those conversations are not happening, they should be happening. If there’s an opportunity for a creative collaboration, municipality to school board, we will be looking at those. The Minister of Education will facilitate those conversations.

But it behooves school trustees, school boards, municipalities and community groups to work together for the best of the community. That’s a much more productive process than the blunt instrument of a moratorium that does not recognize the individual opportunities in every community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member for Scarborough–Rouge River.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: My question is to the Premier. I attended three community meetings at three different Catholic schools in my riding. Parents are deeply concerned that their children’s school will be closed. No consideration is given to the distance these kids have to travel to the new school. No consideration is given to the fact that schools with a large number of students limit potential for kids to participate in school sports. No consideration is given to students with special needs.

Why would you put students and their families through all this, Premier? Why won’t you introduce a moratorium on school closures?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to say thank you to the member opposite for that question. Attending those discussions among schools is exactly what you should be doing in terms of hearing from the school board and the school board hearing from the local community in terms of what is the best plan for this community.

As the Premier has said, the role of locally elected school boards is vital to local communities. The reason we have the Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline is to ensure that those meaningful conversations take place, because these decisions are very difficult decisions. Whether they’re occurring—anywhere in the province, they are very difficult decisions, and it’s important that that input is had from all parts of the community. That is exactly what is happening with these conversations that are occurring: ensuring that, as school boards are required to make the decisions, they get that input from all parts of the community.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has dubbed her band-aid solution to the hydro crisis in Ontario the fair hydro plan—odd, because she didn’t even mention the completely unfair mandatory time-of-use pricing that Ontario families and businesses have been suffering under.

How can the Premier claim her plan is fair when it leaves seniors and young parents at home with their kids to pay more while lining the pockets of her friends on Bay Street?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to the work that he’s doing to look at the market pricing and to look at if there are ways of providing options to people.

The fair hydro plan in Ontario is about taking an average of 25% off the bill of every one of those people that the leader of the third party identified. That is fair. It’s also fair that people who are living in rural and more remote areas and are paying disproportionately high distribution charges would have relief as well. It’s also fair that people who are living on low income would have extra support. That’s what makes the fair hydro plan fair.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last week, I visited Versatile Inn in Sarnia and spoke with the owner, a woman named Mehru Malik. Mehru told me all about her nearly-$8,000 hydro bill. Mehru wants relief, but the Liberal Party doesn’t fix the problems, like unfair mandatory time-of-use pricing.

When will this Premier deal with the important issues in our electricity system, like ending mandatory use pricing, instead of focusing on her political well-being?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise again to talk about the fair hydro plan that’s going to be helping every ratepayer across the province with a 25% reduction, as soon as we can get this legislation passed through the House.

It is important to know that time-of-use is something that we’ve been working on for months. We’ve recognized that a senior couple living on a fixed income in northern Ontario shouldn’t be on the same retail price plan as a single condo dweller living here in downtown Toronto. That’s why we asked, months and months ago, for the IESO to start work on this, to start looking at bringing forward some other options besides time-of-use.

But while they’re doing that, we continue to act. We brought forward other reductions, and then last week, a 25% reduction for every family across this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A senior sitting at home in Sudbury shouldn’t have to wring their hands, worrying about turning the lights on and turning the stove on during the day. That’s not fair, Speaker. That’s not fair.

Mehru, the woman in Sarnia who runs this hotel, told me that she washes her own towels and pillowcases for the hotel on-site, as a way to save a bit of money. But even that isn’t very helpful, because her staff have to do the laundry during the day so that they won’t wake up the guests, and that forces her to pay peak electricity prices.

Why didn’t this Premier address the unfair time-of-use pricing in her desperate attempt to save her own political skin?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The one thing that’s very important to also highlight about our government’s fair hydro plan is that it delivers a 25% reduction for not only every household in the province but to half a million small businesses and farms. That is something we should all be proud of.

Not only that, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has highlighted the importance of the small businesses and the challenges they face. Many regional chambers have spoken to us about that, so we listened and we took action.

Every ratepayer who pays time-of-use prices in Ontario will receive the 25% reduction. This includes households, farms, businesses and more. We’re very proud of the fair hydro plan.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Last week, I also visited with Cheryl and Scot Ryckman at their farm in Chatham. They told me that they paid $75,000 in hydro bills last year alone. For a small business, that’s a lot to take. The Premier says she’s concerned about hydro bills like Scot and Cheryl’s, but her plan doesn’t give them any long-term protection.

Why is the Premier bringing in a short-term Band-Aid when what she needs—what they need, what Ontario needs—is a long-term fix to the energy system that this Liberal government messed up in the first place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’re very pleased to be able to stand and talk about the fair hydro plan and how this is going to benefit farms right across the province, farms that will see a 25% reduction in their electricity bills.

This does much, much more for small businesses right across this province. At the same time, those businesses that are larger, those businesses like our small manufacturing sector, can now qualify for the enhanced ICI program. That’s helping them save up to a third on their energy bill. That’s because we’ve taken action to ensure that we’re helping not only residences, not only small businesses, not only farms, but our manufacturing sector and our large businesses as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Scot and Cheryl have reduced their hydro consumption by 40% over the past year, but none of that—none of that—translated into lower electricity bills. The Premier’s plan doesn’t address time-of-use pricing. It doesn’t address bad contracts that she signed. It doesn’t address the oversupply of energy that we are paying private and foreign companies to generate, that we don’t even use. It doesn’t stop the wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One.

Can the Premier explain to small-business owners like the Ryckmans why her plan doesn’t address any of the underlying problems in our hydro system and why any relief that comes under her plan will only be temporary?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What I think the leader of the third party needs to do is put down her plan that doesn’t address anything—it doesn’t save one cent for families or businesses in this province—and actually look at ours and see what the fair hydro plan does: a 25% reduction for small businesses, farms and residences right across the province, and the ICI program is enhanced, helping our manufacturing sector and all our businesses.

We’re actually helping low-income individuals, which their plan didn’t even address until the last page. We’re making sure those who are most vulnerable actually get the help that they need. When it comes to our First Nations, those living on-reserve, we are also making sure that there is a new rate for them, that they’re getting help. We’re actually helping everybody in the province, unlike the opposition over on that side.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nobody believes for a minute anything that came out of the mouth of that minister a moment ago because it’s totally nowhere near the reality of what occurred last week.

Here is the reality, though: The Liberal plan does nothing more than make a last-ditch effort on behalf of this government, this Premier and her political party that’s trying to hold on to power here in this province for just a little bit longer. Mehru Malik knows it. The Ryckmans know it. In fact, everybody in Ontario saw it for exactly what it was last week.

When will this Premier stop putting the interests of her banker friends and her political party ahead of the interests of small businesses, family, industry and mining in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and talk about—

Interjection.

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

I’m going to turn to the dean of the House to let him know I know the trick of turning your back to the Speaker and speaking into the microphone that has been turned on. I would appreciate it if you would cease doing so.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been around long enough.

Minister.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s talk about who else is talking about the fair hydro plan and all of its benefits. Francesca Dobbyn, the executive director of the United Way of Bruce Grey: “This shows Kathleen Wynne’s government is listening to people. With these positive changes, our rural community will now truly benefit from the low-cost power it produces.”

Isadore Day, the Ontario regional chief: “The elimination of the delivery charge will assist our citizens by reducing energy poverty in our communities. It also represents recognition for the use of the land in the development and expansion of the provincial energy grid.... Today’s commitment by the Ontario government is commendable and allows a path forward for greater quality of life for First Nations in Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker, I can keep going on the number of quotes that we have here.

Interjection: Keep going.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Well, I’ll do so, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Well, I know I won’t have time, but I’ll look forward to talking about more in some of my supplementaries.

School closures

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, last night I attended the final meeting where delegates’ desperate plea to save St. Agatha elementary school could be heard again by the Waterloo Catholic board. It’s the third time in nine years that parents have had to fight to save their beloved St. Agatha school. It was just over two years ago that parents thought they could breathe easier after their last battle to save St. Agatha had finally come to an end. Yet, there they were again last night making the same arguments to save the same rural school this government’s new review rules allowed to be placed right back on the chopping block.

Speaker, it’s cruel and unfair to expect parents and communities to fight on an almost annual basis to keep their school doors open. Will the Premier end the constant battle faced by rural students, parents and communities like mine in Wilmot and St. Agatha, and will she call for an immediate moratorium on rural school closures?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, it’s a pleasure for me to rise and to talk about the fact that we are investing in schools right across this province because we know that every student in Ontario deserves the best education possible.

When a decision has to be made and a board and a community come together to make a very tough decision about the change of a school, whether it’s the closure of a school, the consolidation—or in the instance I know of with the member from Peterborough, we announced two schools coming together to form one new school because that is in the best interests of the students and the local community.

An arbitrary moratorium is not the answer. We want to ensure that our elected trustees can make decisions locally that are in the best interests of their communities with, of course, the meaningful input provided by all sides of the community to make those tough decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question is to the Premier. This government is now planning to close up to four Forest-area schools, pulling students out of their communities to take long bus rides to attend a super-school, the first in Lambton county to have students from kindergarten through grade 12 in the same building.

At the direction of the provincial government, the Lambton Kent District School Board has closed 14 elementary schools, three high schools and one adult learning centre. These buildings are important to the health and future prosperity of these communities.

Will the Premier finally recognize the vital importance of rural and small-town schools to the social and economic life of their communities and place a moratorium on school closures until the funding formula can be fixed?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, we know that schools are vital to the social fabric of our communities. That is why we are asking boards and municipalities to work together. We’re also asking boards to work with each other. The coterminous boards and communities can come together to talk about the joint use of school spaces; to talk about, how do we serve the needs of this local community in the best way possible, on behalf of the students in our community as well as on behalf of the community as a whole?

We recognize that in rural communities there needs to be greater investment. That is exactly what we have done. Through the Grants for Student Needs, we have funded our rural and our northern schools to a greater degree.

We put standards in place to ensure that every student in Ontario gets the best education possible, and we’re going to continue to make those investments.

Cancer treatment

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

Speaker, the last thing that cancer patients and their family want to hear is that their treatment will be delayed. Just think about it: You have cancer, your life depends on prompt treatment, and you’re told that you will have to wait; that there’s a chemotherapy drug shortage. That’s exactly what’s happening right here in Ontario. Now we know that at least 35 people in Richmond Hill have had their cancer treatments delayed. Yesterday, the minister said that he knew nothing about the chemo drug shortage.

Will the minister tell us how many cancer patients across Ontario have suffered delays in their cancer treatments and how many hospitals have been impacted by this drug shortage?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the opportunity to address this extremely important issue. The member opposite is correct that we did see, for a brief period of time here in Ontario, a shortage of a particular drug called 5-FU, which is used for treating cancer, particularly gastrointestinal, breast and other related cancers. This was the result of a shipment that was provided through Health Canada and was put in quarantine because of some concern about the integrity of the vials that contain the cancer drug itself.

The federal government—I think the member opposite probably saw their press release yesterday—as a result of this shortage, which was a federal issue as a result of the quarantine of the supply, released 3,000 vials that they had deemed to have sufficient integrity, which they are confident will result in no further shortage until the manufacturer is able to provide additional vials in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I understand that Health Canada has taken steps to try to fix the shortage, at least in the short term, but it doesn’t explain how the Minister of Health wasn’t even aware that it was going on.

When cancer patients are forced to delay their treatments because of a shortage of chemo drugs, this is as close to life and death as you can get. I would think that the Minister of Health would want to know about such a failure of our health care system, so that he can take steps to correct it.

My question is simple, Speaker: When was the Ministry of Health informed of this drug shortage, and why did it take so long for the minister to find out about it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It is important that Ontarians have the facts. Cancer Care Ontario was informed by the hospital in question on Friday. I was asked about this Monday morning, just after question period. When they were notified, Cancer Care Ontario notified the Ministry of Health of this federal issue, Mr. Speaker, that has been addressed over the course of a weekend to the point where, at 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon, the vials had been released.

But it does point to an important issue, and that is the coordination of all parties. Certainly, if a hospital is anticipating a shortage of medicines, they need to get in touch with the Ministry of Health, with Cancer Care Ontario—with the federal government, as in this case—so we can address that promptly, prior to it becoming an issue.

We also have a system through CCO where, once they’re informed, they look at the entire province-wide inventory. In this case, they would have been able to reallocate vials that are available through other hospitals to the needy hospital.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I know that over the course of this and the last session, we have heard false statements from the opposition, claiming that we have increased tax for on-site craft distillers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Withdraw.

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

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know that this could not be further from the truth. We know that the recent changes introduced in Bill 70 will actually make craft distillers better off, increasing the revenue margins from sales at on-site stores from 39% to 45%.

Could the minister please explain what other supports we are offering to this growing industry, and how they will help small distillers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I would like to thank the member from Davenport for the question. I’d also like to thank her for clarifying a very important point. As we have stated time and time again, we are committed to helping Ontario’s small businesses scale up, and we’re committed to investing in our rapidly growing community of small cider and small spirits producers.

In fact, just this morning, I was at the LCBO, alongside Minister Leal, MPP Martins and MPP Arthur Potts, to announce our government’s new support program for small cider producers and small distilleries. Mr. Speaker, this new program will invest $4.9 million over three years between the craft cider and spirits sectors. That means that a producer could receive as much as $220,000 in funding per year. It’s a program that will help to support growing cideries and craft distilleries to hire more staff, buy more equipment and secure more funding for on-site stores.

Mr. Speaker, these changes are good for business, good for consumers and good for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Mr. Speaker, I’m thrilled to hear that the government is taking steps to support these growing industries. I was pleased to join Minister Sousa, Minister Leal and my colleague the MPP for Beaches–East York at the announcement this morning.

I know that Yongehurst Distillery, who was at the announcement this morning, from my riding of Davenport, have already expressed their contentment with the exciting changes that we are making to this industry.

I know that beyond my riding of Davenport, there are cider producers and distillers that play a critical role in local economies across the province. It’s clear that this support will help increase the availability of locally produced spirits and ciders for Ontario consumers.

Could the minister please share with the House why this government is launching this new program, and how these businesses are using other Ontario products?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a private member’s bill on Thursday.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, it’s true, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time—could be three.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I just want to assure the good folks in the Peterborough riding that I wasn’t imbibing at the LCBO this morning at 9 a.m. I was just there for an announcement.

I want to thank the member for her advocacy work on this particular file, but I also want to acknowledge the good work that was done by the member from Beaches–East York, Mr. Potts; the member from Dufferin–Caledon, Ms. Jones; and the member from Niagara Falls, Mr. Gates. Collectively, we’ve all been working together to make this industry grow in the province of Ontario.

That’s why we need to work together to help our small cideries and distilleries scale up, create jobs in their communities and provide customers with locally made choices.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity just yesterday to meet with Charlie Stevens—

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —the head of the apple growers, and they’re very supportive of this program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We’ve been at this long enough that I should not have to remind members that when I stand, you sit. When your time is up, it’s up.

New question.

School closures

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Premier: The Ministry of Education has neglected the needs of rural schools for years. Public boards have a mandate to provide education to all students in an area, yet the government makes it impossible to maintain infrastructure, address rising costs or adopt new technologies. Now, when push has come to shove, the Premier points her finger at the boards, and blames them for the problem.

My riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry still stands to lose a number of excellent public schools, including Rothwell-Osnabruck and North Stormont Public School, despite dozens of public meetings of up to 1,000 people. These schools offer great education and are important community centres, providing meeting and athletic facilities.

Speaker, when will the Premier show some leadership, discover some commitment to giving our students a good public education close to home and place a moratorium on the 600 school closures until a full review of education funding for rural schools is completed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this question, because the member opposite and I have actually visited schools in his area and beyond. We’ve been up and down the concession roads, and he knows that I know and the community knows that schools are a vital part of the communities. That’s why these conversations are difficult conversations for local boards.

One of the aspects in the letter that I’ve sent to the chairs of school boards and to all municipalities, along with Minister Chiarelli, is that boards work together with their local communities and with their municipalities, as well as with the coterminous boards in communities, because we want to ensure that we are making the best possible decision on behalf of the students in that area.

If that means a board can come together with another board for joint use of space, then we will support that, Mr. Speaker. We have funding in place to support those types of initiatives, and they will be given priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you say you got into politics because of education. Well, the people of Paisley feel you have lost your way and are now only concerned about power and serving yourself. They have lost confidence and trust in you.

Last night I got a text from Dale who asked me on behalf of his community to stress the devastation you will cause if you close the only school in town. In Markdale, Chapman’s Ice Cream has stepped up to buy the school. The municipality of Grey Highlands has stepped up and invited you and the minister to come and visit, and to actually get out and learn what’s happening. The people of Markdale and area have stepped up.

Premier, you have found billions to try to save your political career and take care of your cronies and fix the mistakes you have made. It’s never too late to do the right thing. Will you step up? Will you put a moratorium on any more school closures today, and avoid another fatal mistake that will devastate communities across our province?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, as municipalities, communities and organizations come together with their local school boards to find the best possible solution for their local community, I am confident that they will continue to make good decisions on behalf of their communities, putting the needs of students first—whether that’s the great programming that students receive—when they have the necessary investments in their schools.

The student experience and the outcomes for students are extremely important. It’s one of the reasons why we sent this letter, to remind school boards of their obligations to meet with local communities so that these great examples can be brought forward and can be supported. That is exactly the intent and that is why an arbitrary moratorium is ill-advised, because these types of conversations would cease in the case of a moratorium. We want to ensure that boards—

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

New question.

Children’s services

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. We know that good health outcomes and success in education are determined in large measure by social conditions. Today, we are joined by workers who are here for OPSEU social services day. Among other roles, they work with children with mental health issues. They protect children from neglect and abuse. They assist adults and children with disabilities, and they support women fleeing violence.

They’re asking for a bolder vision on social services that recognizes that children and families have better health and education outcomes when we invest in a strong social safety net. Will the government commit to funding based on that vision and stop cuts to services?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to first start by thanking all of the child protection workers, anyone who works in public education and anyone in this province who works to help our children. I want to thank them for doing what they do because they are, without question, some of the most valuable people in our community.

Mr. Speaker, our government has been working to strengthen, to modernize and to transform our child protection service agencies here in the province of Ontario. The real purpose, at the end of the day, is to make sure that young people have what they need to be successful.

We know that for our children’s aid societies, there are high expectations for them to deliver the best services possible. That’s why we keep investing. We made sure that we changed the model five years ago to look at meeting the needs of a particular community, rather than just giving money based on historical numbers. The member opposite knows that most of those staffing decisions in our child protection agencies are done locally by the child protection agency.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the Premier. Budgets in child welfare and children’s mental health have been flatlined for years, and it’s the same story right across our social services: Agencies and workers are having to do more with less. There are 12,000 children and youth waiting for mental health services. Children are moved far from their communities to access residential beds. Women are being turned away at shelters.

I ask again: Will the Premier stop cuts and commit to funding services to ensure that every person in this province gets the services that they need?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’ve been looking for ways to transform the services that are out there for young people. The member knows that we now have Bill 89, which is going to change the way child protection agencies work here in the province of Ontario. We’re looking for ways to ensure that there are less children that go through care.

Over the last several years, we’ve had a 19% reduction in children using the services through child protection. We have more young people who are being adopted here in the province of Ontario and finding permanent homes.

When it comes to mental health, we do have a strategy in place. We’ve made a commitment that we’ll be looking at the funding formula, but we’ve just transformed our system to put l