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

April 17, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-17 (PDF)

L014 - Tue 17 Apr 2018 / Mar 17 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 April 2018 Mardi 17 avril 2018

Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au rapport de solvabilité du consommateur et la disponibilité des ascenseurs

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Chris Stockwell

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Government accounting practices

Child care

Hospital funding

Government spending

Hospital funding

Public transit

Pharmacare

Mental health services

Environmental protection

Minimum wage

Health care

Government investments

Long-term care

Tenant protection

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Schizophrenia Society of Ontario

Provincial election

Peek Freans plant

Hallmarks of Humanity quilt exhibit

Jack Richardson London Music Awards

Katyn massacre

Yom Hazikaron and Israeli Independence Day

Schizophrenia Society of Ontario

Medical assistance in dying

Krista DuChene

Introduction of Bills

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Special Purpose Account Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence du compte à des fins particulières du ministère des Richesses naturelles et des Forêts

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le ministère de la Santé mentale et des dépendances

Government Contract Wages Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les salaires pour les marchés publics

Petitions

Ontario budget

Long-term care

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Tree seed services

Long-term care

Ontario budget

Lyme disease

Long-term care

Water fluoridation

Lyme disease

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

Plan for Care and Opportunity Act (Budget Measures), 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un plan axé sur le mieux-être et l’avenir (mesures budgétaires)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au rapport de solvabilité du consommateur et la disponibilité des ascenseurs

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 16, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 8, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Han Dong: Good morning, Speaker. Thank you very much. I’m very pleased to lend my voice to today’s debate about Bill 8, Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act. As you know, I put forward a private member’s bill, the Reliable Elevators Act, back in 2017. The reason for it was because when I went out to meet with my constituents, the number one issue in my riding amongst all the residents of the high-rises is the availability of their elevators. Sometimes when they go down, they go down for weeks, if not months. You’ve perhaps seen quite a few articles in the news.

I remember there was one about the Aura building where they had multiple elevators out at the same time, for weeks. It was really making it inconvenient. But sometimes it’s a public safety issue.

Another building that I visited was a seniors’ building. I had a meeting with them and I said, “What’s the biggest concern in your residence?” They said, “The biggest problem is we only have two elevators, one of them is a freight elevator, and they’re always down.” When they go down, if something happens—as you know, in seniors’ buildings the residents may have medical conditions and they need to call in the paramedics. They can’t get through to their floor using the elevator, and in some incidents they have to carry the equipment up to the floor and bring the senior down. It really extends the time you need to respond to the emergency situation, so it’s a public safety issue.

Sometimes the seniors even have to cancel their medical appointments because they are afraid that they may not be able to get back to their apartment. I think it’s a very urgent issue that needs to be looked after.

I came back and I spoke to my team. I said, “Can you guys do some research and see if there are any laws or regulations? Perhaps there is something that’s just not being well enforced.” They looked into it and, unfortunately, in Ontario right now there isn’t anything that speaks to reliability of our elevators.

There is tons of stuff—actually very good laws and regulations—that speak to the safety of our elevators. Our elevators, under the watch of the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, are in very good shape. Don’t get me wrong; we have the safest elevators and devices in the world because of the oversight of our agency, the TSSA, but there’s nothing that speaks to the reliability of our elevators and escalators.

So I asked them, “Let’s do some research about previous private members’ bills: Was there anything brought forward to this House for consideration to enhance the availability of elevators?” There was absolutely nothing.

What happens is, during peak hours, when residents try to get back home or try to get to work, there will be a lineup in front of the elevator of people trying to get on. To me, this is a part of the transportation that brings them to work and brings them home at the end of the night. We spend billions and billions of dollars on public transit to resolve the congestion issue, to improve transportation across the province. This is something that we don’t have to spend lots of money on but that we can fix right away.

So I asked my team to put together something to consider. As you know, I put forward the Reliable Elevators Act, calling for a fixed time frame—14 days to get elevators repaired and seven days if it’s a seniors’ home or a medical facility—as well as to look at the building code to see if we can make it mandatory for any new builds to submit a capacity study before the building permit is granted. I thought that between these two measures, we could start looking into this problem. I received overwhelming support from the public, from my residents, from the media, and also from the members of this House.

I was very pleased that everybody understood and thought that was necessary for our province.

It’s my privilege to represent a downtown riding. Having grown up in a downtown riding, I’ve seen the changes over the years. I’ve seen so many tall buildings being built and planned for our neighbourhood. So this is absolutely necessary to be looked at now.

I remember when I first went out and consulted with the sector, there were quite a few stakeholders. Very soon I started to learn that this is actually quite a complicated matter. You have TSSA as the regulator, an arm’s-length agency to the government. Then you have the unionized mechanics. Then you have some mechanics who are not unionized. Then you have the independent contractors and the big four elevator companies, represented by NEEA. As well, you have the device owners. Right now, there’s a lot of onus put on the device owners when it comes to the safety of these devices.

I’ve done quite a bit of consultation with as many stakeholder groups as I could, and the responses were very different. Some said, “The industry is good. Unfortunately, we have to order parts from another part of the world. We don’t have parts ready to go here. That’s what takes time.” Some were saying, “No, the situation is terrible.” So I was a little puzzled, because there wasn’t any centralized data that we could rely on. Everyone was telling their own story.

That’s why I came to the conclusion of, let’s put forward a time frame of about two weeks. I consulted widely about this time frame. People were saying that, yes, two weeks was a reasonable time. Don’t forget, that’s 14 days; 14 days is still a lot of anxiety, confusion and frustration that the residents have to go through, waiting for their device to be fixed.

Last summer, if you remember, the Honourable Tracy MacCharles, the minister, ordered a study to be completed through TSSA. I had the pleasure of reading the report. I want to thank Justice Cunningham for his hard work. I know it’s so hard to gather all the loose data and try to make sense of it. It’s very, very difficult. But I remember, when I read the report, that it was a surprise to me. I remember that there were a couple of figures. Elevators in condos: On average, 93% of the time they are available, which means that 7% of the time in a year they are not available.

If you do the math, that means that any condo, on average, will have one elevator be out of service 25 days of the year—25 days of the year, any given condo. So this is quite a serious matter.

Also I read—there’s an entrapment report. There is some data from the TSSA. It talks about entrapment, because apparently we have to report to the TSSA if there is entrapment happening. There are 26 entrapments in this province on any given day—26 entrapments. Think about this. If we see elevators as a form of transportation—if the TTC has 26 incidents where passengers are stuck in their vehicle, we call that a crisis. So I’m so pleased that there is an action plan being announced by the ministry. It’s as part of the action plan that we have this piece of legislation in front of us to consider.

This bill, if passed, will help to address the availability of elevators in multi-storey residences and long-term-care and retirement homes. The proposed amendments to the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, would establish a legislative and regulatory framework for elevator availability. We understand that out-of-service elevators are a source of frustration for residents, especially for elderly people and those with disabilities.

We’re in a province where we talk about making our buildings and public buildings accessible to all. So I think this piece of legislation is very, very timely. If passed, it would allow the TSSA to start collecting data and centralize data on extensive elevator outages. I think the time is about two days; if they’re out two days, they have to be reported to the TSSA. Then, based on that data, the ministry will go as far as looking at setting a time frame for elevator repairs.

This is based on the recommendation put forward by the report done by Justice Cunningham. It is very important to recognize that there is a past history of the Liberal government, our government on this side, doing work on consumer protection. We’ve done something on gift cards. There used to be an expiry date. Think about this: You spend money to buy a gift card and give it to a friend, and for whatever reason the gift card wasn’t used before the expiry date, and it becomes of no value. This is not right. Our government went out and fixed that.

I also remember that, as a service provider, at the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services we’re making everyday life easier for all residents of Ontario. If you recall, not too long ago, to replace a birth certificate or any sort of certificate, going through the Registrar General would take up to half a year, six months, and it was always the norm. But we said that that wasn’t good enough, and the government moved forward to a model where we use current technology to put out a 15-day guarantee: If you don’t get your birth certificate within 15 days, it’s free.

At the time, a lot of people had questions about it, thinking whether or not it’s possible. We’ve proven that that is the new norm.

Through this bill, I think it’s going to start a new norm of the elevator industry. I’m just looking at the detail of the bill. It talks about changing the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000.

If passed, it would create regulation-making authority to collect elevator outage data, ensure information about elevator performance is published so that prospective residents can make better-informed decisions before they rent or buy a home in a multi-storey building, and implement administrative monetary penalties in order to strengthen TSSA’s enforcement of elevator safety and maintenance requirements.

I understand why some of the buildings are having trouble with their elevators, because the current regulation, the requirement on the maintenance, doesn’t go as far. It’s very minimal, in my mind. They only need to do sometimes quarterly, sometimes bi-monthly maintenance. I think making it more frequent will start to avoid some of the outage problems.

It would also create a further standard for elevator repair timelines, as I mentioned before, and designate an appropriate regulator to enforce those standards. It could be a department of the government; it could be part of a stand-alone agency.

An addition to this bill: Our elevator availability action plan would help elevator owners negotiate better maintenance contracts through an education and outreach campaign and improve elevator access for our first responders in case of emergencies. This is so important for residents living in high-rises.

I spent a lot of constituency weeks knocking on doors and talking to residents. In my riding, as you know, Speaker, there are many living in high-rises. They’re telling me that they’re worried, in case of emergencies, whether or not the paramedics could get to their floor, because sometimes, if there is a fire alarm that triggered all the response, even firefighters are having trouble getting through to their floor.

My understanding is that there is a regulation right now that a universal key has to be made available to first responders, but access to that universal key sometimes is a problem, is a challenge for paramedics, especially. There have been articles talking about residents, that if you live on a certain floor, above a certain height, the survival rate—say, for someone unfortunately having a heart attack—is very, very low. So, improved access for first responders is so important, to ensure that safety is looked after and our first responders can save lives in those situations.

It would also create a new standard for new buildings to ensure they have enough elevators to serve the residents, and address the labour supply of elevator mechanics through consultations to determine options to meet labour market demands. My understanding is that currently there is only one college that delivers education programs for elevator mechanics. There is quite a bit of demand for it. They make good money. They make really good money in this province. There is a shortage. If you ask the people in the industry, they’ll tell you that there is a shortage.

Sometimes they can’t get enough mechanics to go and perform their work. It is very, very important to address the labour supply issue.

When I go out and canvass those buildings and I tell people that there is an action plan in place to address the elevator availability issue in this province, many of them have told me that they have learned this through the media. I think that there is a good reporter, Colin Perkel, who has been on this file for more than two years. I’ve read many, many articles that he put forward, keeping this issue top of mind for many government officials.

So, the public is well educated about this issue. They understand the changes coming, they understand that it is necessary, and they do feel that this is the right thing to do. They tell me that in today’s Ontario, with so many high-rises being built, it is absolutely necessary for the government to act on their behalf, to make sure their rights and their livelihood are looked after.

Again, elevators are a form of transportation. We can improve public transit, and we can improve the condition of roads and build as many roads and bridges as needed to support our economic growth. But at the end of the day, if someone has to wait in front of the elevator for 10, 15 or 20 minutes—you’ve seen those lineups in front of elevators—it is very frustrating.

People sometimes don’t consider elevators as a form of transportation. They think they enter the lobby and they’re home, but that’s not true. When they open the door and they enter their apartment, that’s their home.

The whole point of this bill is looking at things that some may consider small but are very, very critical, to improve the quality of life of our residents in this province.

I have had the pleasure of serving my residents for the last four years. I try my best to find things that our government can do, whether they’re big or small, that will improve the quality of their life not just for now but for many, many years to come.

Given today’s growth that we’ve seen in urban settings, I think this bill is absolutely needed. I urge all members of this House to support Bill 8. Let’s get this through this spring, to provide the support for residents of all high-rises.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to speak to this again. I spoke about it a fair bit yesterday.

I think what we have really been talking about here is to do things in balance, and to ensure that the industry is engaged and that we actually have the ability.

There was talk in one of the earlier iterations of a very short, condensed time period and then going after fines. Well, if people can’t find the parts, if they can’t find the workers because there has been a shortage and there are limited technicians out there, then it’s very challenging to penalize, obviously, the owner of the building, who I’m sure wants it to be safe as well. So we’ve got to find a balance here.

Obviously, from a safety perspective, everyone is willing to support this type of legislation. We want good elevators. Certainly, in this building, with the age of it, there are challenges. They’re trying to maintain it as an original building, but it becomes a problem with parts. It becomes a problem with being able to manufacture, and sometimes you have to machine the actual parts to keep it running. There are the realities of that.

One of the biggest concerns I have is, again, that they’re going on the punitive mindset. This government has done this for many, many years, in regard to being punitive and going out with a mentality of “we’re just going to fine, fine, fine everybody.” They changed the legislation to whitewash across all people who aren’t even impacting it in a negative way. Go after the people who really set it up.

The biggest concern that we keep hearing out in the community is actually the lack of technicians. If they hadn’t shut down so many of our high-skills majors programs in our province and shut down 600 schools—which, again, impacts kids coming through those types of programs—we would have more technicians to be able to have this, and then you would not have the backlogs for as long as you have.

At the end of the day, I’d say I commend the person for coming out.

We talked as well yesterday about consumer protection. I talked at length, in my 20 minutes, about the consumer protection by a government that doesn’t come out and say things like, “We’re going to sell Hydro One.” That wasn’t protecting the consumer.

When they spend billions of dollars, when they borrow $25 billion, Mr. Speaker, and put it on the backs of our kids, who are sitting in front of you, our pages, that’s not consumer protection. When they spend $8 billion and waste a billion dollars on gas plants, that’s not consumer protection.

There are some good things in this bill, but there are lots of other things that we need to be talking about and debating in this House as well.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: I was listening to the member from Trinity–Spadina in his 20 minutes on Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000.

It’s interesting. I said, even when I was reviewing the legislation, that the maintenance

schedule for our elevators in our current buildings was not stringent enough. He went to some effort to make the point about the safety of the current elevators in the province of Ontario. However, maintaining that current stock is going to be in question as it’s defined in this bill, because we actually don’t have the skilled trades workers to actually maintain the stock that we have. This was debated at length yesterday. It’s unfortunate because I think everyone agrees that improving the maintenance

schedule for the current stock of elevators in Ontario is needed and it should be legislated, because it is a safety issue, but then having the other side, the compliance of that schedule, is actually going to be very difficult.

I hope that this prompts a broader discussion of the importance of the skilled trades in Ontario and the value of ensuring that in the public education system, there is this streaming towards skilled trades. We need those jobs and, as I pointed out yesterday, they are good jobs. They are good jobs to have; they’re well paid. Obviously when you improve the maintenance

schedule per Bill 8, those jobs are going to be more plentiful.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. I just want to again send out appreciation to the member from Trinity–Spadina for taking on this issue, which isn’t very sexy and it’s not on the front pages of the papers, but hundreds of thousands of people have to get to and from work, the store, up and down these elevators every day, three, four times a day—hundreds of thousands of people. If those elevators aren’t working, seniors can’t get to doctors’ appointments and people can’t get to work. This is a hidden transportation issue.

I really think he spent a lot of blood, sweat and tears on this. It’s typical of the work that many MPPs do that doesn’t get the appreciation it deserves. It is really something that, sure, is not going to make Power and Politics, but it really means a lot to ordinary folks. So I want to commend him, and other MPPs who take on these kinds of battles, and give a little praise.

I know the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound talked about protecting consumers. How dare he talk about protecting consumers when his party gave away the 407 built by the taxpayers? They gave it away to their Spanish friends so that every day consumers drive on the 407, they send money to Spain, to a consortium that bought that asset for $3 billion. It’s worth about $30 billion right now. They talk about protecting consumers? Every time a consumer goes on the 407, that cheque goes to their Spanish friends. Shame on you Conservatives for selling off the 407 again; every day you sold it off.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to the debate today on this particular bill, Bill 8. For those of you watching, Bill 8 is called the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, 2018.

I just want to recap quickly. This particular bill amends the Technical Standards and Safety Act to add the power to impose administrative monetary penalties and amends the TSSA act to give the minister powers to define elevator reliability criteria and standards. Again, it’s taking powers behind closed doors. It’s the MO of this particular government that they take things out of the public domain and do everything behind closed doors, and look at the mess that we’ve gotten into over the last 15 years or so.

Finally, this bill amends the Consumer Reporting Act to mandate free credit score disclosure, quick and free disclosure of consumers’ credit files by the credit reporting agencies, and creates ministerial power, again, to limit what can be used to determine a creditor’s score.

I have to share with you, Speaker, that there are a few flags here. Of course we all want safe and reliable elevators; that’s not the

part in question. But time and time again—we heard it from the good member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and he echoes a message that we’ve heard time and time again from our critic from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry: The TSSA is actually a perfect example of burdensome red tape with penalties attached that actually drag down our small businesses and our economy.

Let’s walk through some of the administrative penalties that the TSSA will acquire through this particular act. The most important thing is that the TSSA is not accountable to anyone or to stakeholders. Stakeholders, in particular, have expressed frustration with its practices for years. So why are we giving them more power? Again, it’s the MO of this government to do things behind closed doors, and it’s got to stop.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Trinity–Spadina for final comment.

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the members from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Kitchener–Waterloo, Eglinton–Lawrence and Huron–Bruce for providing their response to my debate.

I want to remind everyone: The former PC government has done quite a bit of work on the TSSA. In fact, I think they were the driving force on the TSSA. So hearing the member from Huron–Bruce talking about the TSSA adding red tape—public safety is not red tape. We remember the record that they had when they were in government. We are reminded of the Walkerton tragedy. Those were the direct result of cutting scrutiny, public safety and inspection resources. That is important.

Now we’re in this House talking about public safety issues for high-rise residents, and I hear the Conservative colleagues saying, “It’s just red tape. You don’t need to add more stuff on this.” It’s absolutely unacceptable. I cannot accept this notion.

To the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, I agree with you: The maintenance

schedule could be improved. But I remember the maintenance

schedule was amended under the previous Conservative government. It used to be a lot more frequent to perform that maintenance as required. Now we have an opportunity to fix it.

Now, I do believe that they shouldn’t be legislated; they should be regulated. Why? Because as the technology improves, we have to stay flexible, to stay nimble enough to make sure we put in regulation that addresses the current state.

I say to my Conservative friends, please reconsider. This is about public safety; it’s not about the politics you try to play in this House.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Dufferin–Caledon to discuss Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000.

The key part of this proposed legislation is the creation of the standards and timelines for the repairing of elevators in the province of Ontario—seems reasonable. However, that said, I understand the importance of access to elevators to those individuals who choose to live in high-rise apartments and condominiums. We all know that we are building up; we are living up; we are moving up. Elderly individuals living with disabilities are particularly prone to issues when we have elevators go down. For many people, particularly in the core of our cities, just taking the stairs is not an option.

For many, even one flight of stairs is a barrier for them to accessing a business or a service or just visiting friends and family.

There is no better building to exhibit the amount of out-of-order elevators than the building we are currently standing in: Queen’s Park.

I have to tell you a bit of a story, Speaker. At Queen’s Park, when the building was opened many, many, many decades ago, they of course made it available to the public. The novelty of the building, as beautiful as it is—the architecture, and lots of craftsmanship went into the making of Queen’s Park—the novelty and the interest surrounded the elevators, because when Queen’s Park opened, we were one of the first public buildings in the province of Ontario that had elevators.

During those very early days where the public was welcomed to tour their new Parliament buildings, the elevators broke down. In fact, if you go to certain elevators in Queen’s Park, you can actually see the installation number on the interior of the elevator. You will see installation numbers that are 04, 05, 06 and 07, which means they were the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh elevators installed in the province of Ontario. It’s a neat little historical fact, but what I find most interesting is the fact that when we made the building open to the public, it was the elevators that broke down first, and it was because they were the novelty ride of the day. Anyway, I digress.

Several years ago, a member of my staff was actually stuck in an elevator here in this building for over an hour and a half, so I have some appreciation and understanding of the stress and concern that happens when elevators break down.

Okay, sorry. I want to get back to Bill 8. The history lesson got me off track.

I think it’s important to highlight and thank Justice Cunningham. The TSSA Elevator Availability Study, which was completed less than a year ago, in December 2017, is an important background and base document for our conversations surrounding Bill 8. We must always ensure that our legislation that we propose and bring forward here has some basis of fact, has some background and material that are critical to making sure we make the right decisions. This elevator availability study is an important piece of what Bill 8 should be accomplishing.

That said, while I understand the concerns surrounding the timelines of repairs to elevators, I am hearing from the industry that they are concerned that providing prescriptive timelines for repairs looks good on paper but is complex, if not impossible, to actually accomplish. For instance, there is an issue of finding parts for broken elevators from a company which no longer exists.

Because these companies are out of business, finding spare parts for these elevators can be difficult, and in fact, in many cases, the repair companies are having to go back and machine certain repair parts to make sure that the elevators can be repaired. This is not a fast turnaround. This is not going on UPS and dialling up and calling for a part that’s sitting in a factory somewhere. This has to be tooled and machine-designed.

There is a concern that if there are potential penalties for companies that do not repair an elevator within a specific set amount of time, they might simply refuse to sign on or repair elevators that are old or have uncommon parts. So while it makes absolute sense for us to ensure that elevators are fixed promptly, we have to be cognizant of the reality that some elevator problems require specialized and, indeed, complex work.

This holds particularly true in tall buildings. Again, the National Elevator and Escalator Association said that for buildings of 50 storeys or higher, this requires special—and despite prescriptive measures from the government on timelines, there may not be enough supply of technicians for such tall skyscrapers to fulfill those timelines.

This taps back into something that has already been raised in the debate today, and that is, we need to make sure we have the skilled trades people available who are able to do this type of work.

To quote Cunningham’s report, “To respond to emerging concerns associated with elevator availability and the lack of data on the topic, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority ... in partnership with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services ... and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs ... have engaged retired Superior Court Justice Douglas Cunningham to author this independent” report.

It also presented a picture of the state of elevator availability across Ontario. Members of the National Elevator and Escalator Association, which make up about 75% of Ontario’s market, achieved 99% time operation last year. Meanwhile, estimates from the TSSA data found that the average in institutional buildings across Ontario is 97%, or approximately 10 days, non-operational. I get it. I know that 97% is not 100%. I know that if you’re living in a building or trying to access a building that is in that 3%, it’s very frustrating and can be incredibly challenging. However, 97% is not something that we should be ashamed of.

The report also made clear that there are numerous organizations already engaged in elevator availability in Ontario, from the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, which deals with issues of licences for elevators, mechanic licences and incident investigations, to municipalities, who may have enforcement power with their building codes.

The report also talked about the lack of comprehensive data which discusses the state of availability of elevators. A particularly important line from the report reads: “Policymakers and building users need robust data on the state of availability to inform policy and regulation going forward. In general, the evidence gathered to date seems to indicate that non-availability is an issue in specific circumstances and due to a broad range of contributing factors.”

I am concerned, given this passage from a report released less than five months ago, that there is not a clear picture in terms of the reality of elevator availability in the province of Ontario to shape how policy is formulated here.

If the government plans on pushing this legislation through before the election—and I’m going to digress slightly and suggest that the minister of government and consumer regulations, with whom Bill 8 lies, the Honourable Tracy MacCharles, is bringing forward this legislation. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, she announced that she will not be seeking re-election. I wish her well in her next stage, but I hope that we are not bringing Bill 8 forward and rushing it because we want to have a check mark or a give-me to a retiring member of the Legislature. I hope that’s not the motivation and the momentum to moving Bill 8 forward.

I hope that we have done the due diligence necessary to make sure that when Bill 8 ultimately receives royal assent, we’ve done the research, the prep, to make sure that it is a good piece of legislation. Let’s not rush it through and find out in six months or a year that what we were attempting to do with Bill 8 was not practical or possible and that we have to reopen the legislation. I think we owe it to our constituents to do a better job than that.

If the government plans on pushing this legislation through before the election, it seems that it would be passing legislation without the information that the Technical Standards and Safety Authority expert report believed was necessary before formalizing policy was brought forward. To be clear, the TSSA is saying that they need to complete their report before formalizing the policy needed to make sure Bill 8 is accurate.

The Cunningham report also discussed whether the TSSA should have a role in the management of elevator availability in Ontario. Bill 8 empowers the TSSA, as the assessor, to impose administrative penalties for those that contravene the elevator availability requirements established by the act. Crucially, the Cunningham report noted there is no clear link between non-availability and a risk to safety, and that expanding the availability issue to be under the TSSA’s purview could potentially create a “perceived conflict” of interest “if directed to enforce safety and availability.”

Again, we asked Justice Cunningham to bring forward a report. He, in his report, talks about his concerns of how the TSSA should be involved, in what form they should be involved and whether there is an oversight or perceived conflict position there. In the end, Cunningham said the following:

If I can interpret what Justice Cunningham has said, it is to make sure that safety is always the first priority and availability becomes the second priority. They cannot be equal; safety must override all other considerations.

Naturally, any discussion of giving the TSSA more power than we should be, considering the TSSA’s track record—the TSSA is not accountable to anyone and many people have expressed frustration with its practices for years. Some of these concerns were brought forward by my colleagues who have discussed this legislation previously.

Bill 8 gives the TSSA the power to impose stiff monetary penalties, and the appeals against those penalties are likely to be given to the TSSA by regulation. They are, in effect, making the TSSA the judge and the jury. That’s not how we do things in Ontario. You always must have the right of appeal. If you’re going back to appeal something directly to the person who has laid the charge or the fine in the first place, we have a problem with Bill 8.

There are somewhat similar concerns taking place with the involvement of the TSSA from the Cunningham report. That is, the TSSA may be in a conflict, given their involvement at every stage in the process of elevator regulation. In the end, we can say that it is clear that we need to do everything we can to ensure that those in vulnerable populations are able to access services and their residences with elevators.

However, there is a complexity on how this will work on the ground. There needs to be a collaborative approach between the government, the industry, property owners and residents to ensure that the timelines and requirements created by this legislation are reasonable and doable.

The potential concerns about creating unattainable timelines and requirements were outlined in the Cunningham report. To again quote from the report, “the potential for debate around what is ... ‘reasonable’ ... runs the risk of invalidating the requirement.” The report goes further and says, “Many expressed concern that repair timelines might prompt contractors to refuse service or significantly increase charges for older equipment as the device might require more time to repair....

We also heard that elevator repair times could actually increase with prescriptive timelines, as contractors could prioritize repairs to meet the timeline rather than the actual, potentially shorter, time needed for repair. All of this might result in additional costs for building owners and, potentially, residents. Finally, the development and negotiation of appropriate contract terms to meet new requirements could result in significant additional cost to owners and, in turn, building users.”

Again, Speaker, I am not an expert on elevator repair; I am quoting directly from the Cunningham report.

Instead of calling for specific timelines as Bill 8 does, the Cunningham report recommended a plan of action which records all outages that last over 48 hours and where 50% of elevators in a building are unavailable. The report believes that the 48-hour timeline is reasonable because, “Many of the contracts we reviewed specify a 24-hour response time for non-emergency calls. A 48-hour window would give contractors an additional 24 hours to return the device to service, the average time for 98% of devices” already being repaired today.

The report concludes that this reporting requirement would “generate data on prolonged outages” and troublesome buildings and devices. Most importantly, the Cunningham report says that this is “workable for the contracting industry.”

So there is concern that the expert report indicates that there’s not enough data currently to determine the state of the issue of elevator availability, and that same expert report raises concerns about having strict timelines. That said, despite the concerns, it is clear that we need to take action because we know that elderly and disabled individuals need to have access to their residences, to government services and to businesses. They deserve equal access. Simply put, reducing barriers to people is a good thing.

The AODA review went on to say, “Perhaps the most overwhelming number of concerns with barriers were those raised about the built environment, specifically access to buildings and public spaces.”

Speaker, the point is that, yes, we need to do something to make sure that people have access to their homes, to their places of business, and the AODA actually mentions elevators several times, but that just reinforces to me that we have to make sure we do this right. We can’t impose unrealistic and unattainable deadlines and assume, by putting in a piece of legislation, it’s going to happen. Life doesn’t work like that. We need to take the experts, such as the Cunningham report, study it thoroughly and make sure we get this right, because it’s important to all of us.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: I was listening to the member from Dufferin–Caledon, and I still find it very interesting, after being here for almost six years, how differently we see legislation. The member feels that this piece of legislation is being pushed through and rushed through, and she did reference the minister and the fact that the minister has announced that she won’t be running. I too want to extend my best wishes to the minister as she leaves this place.

That said, there’s a reason why this legislation is before us. It has taken a long time for it to come to the floor of the Legislature—through two private members’ bills already. One of the shocking things that we’ve learned is that contained within this legislation is now a more prescriptive maintenance schedule. Many people in the province of Ontario would be surprised that elevator inspections and maintenance were so lax for 15 years—15 years of this government. So I think that there is a call for us to ensure that safety is at the centre of the decision-making that happens here.

That said, I agree with her on the other side that it’s going to be hard to uphold this legislation. Just because you say it must be so does not necessarily mean it will happen. The missing part of this legislation is the skilled workforce to ensure that the maintenance of these elevators happens. This is a very real issue in the province of Ontario, and it’s because our education system has not recognized that as we grow as a province and as the workforce changes, the education system needs to adapt to uphold and encourage students to enter this guild work—skilled trades as a viable economic option.

So I share her concerns that we won’t be able to actually meet the objectives of this legislation.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’m pleased to stand and speak about this bill. I would like to commend not only the minister, who we are very sorry to be losing—she has done a wonderful job—but also my seatmate, the member from Trinity–Spadina, who has worked so hard on this. He has talked to so many people about this and has done a lot of research and investigation into this.

The other thing I wanted to say was that, when you think about it, the most important people that this legislation—both the credit reporting and the elevator availability have to do with seniors who sell their homes and move into condos, hoping to have a less stressful life in regard to maintenance and getting the things done that they need to get done each day. This bill, particularly in regard to the availability of elevators, is very important for them, not only for getting their groceries or being able to get in and out of their condos in the condo building, but also in regard to health care.

As we get older—and we’re seniors too—there are more chances of having a health crisis. If you’re on the 44th floor of a condo and have a heart attack, and the elevator has been out for two days or four days or six days, your chances of surviving that heart attack are very, very low. Time is muscle, as the cardiologists say, and the faster you get to treatment, the more chance you have of surviving.

The other thing that I need to talk about—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Oh, sorry. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): That’s all right. Thank you very much.

Further questions and comments? The member from Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that warm welcome.

The position that we are taking is that we support this piece of legislation—however, with a caveat: The legislation needs some tweaking. There is a little bit better that we can do, and we believe that there’s room for improvement. While it’s important, with respect to the general pith and substance, if you will, of this legislation in terms of improving elevator services, which we agree with, there is a necessity to improve this. We hope that in the committee process, we’ll be able to make some amendments to see this legislation be better at resolving some of the issues with respect to access to elevators.

Furthermore, one of the greatest difficulties we find with this piece of legislation is that the level of oversight of the TSSA just isn’t present. It’s giving the TSSA a level of autonomy and a lack of oversight—that it simply doesn’t exist. We believe that providing that level of autonomy is problematic. There need to be checks and balances. There needs to be a way to ensure that we can monitor these actions and not simply provide carte blanche, so to speak, to the TSSA under these circumstances.

In

summary, while we support the general intent of the legislation and find it to be positive, we hope that through the committee process we’ll be able to resolve some of these issues and work together to find a happy medium through amendments in the committee process, and then we would be prepared to support this legislation.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Bill 8 is a two-part bill. The first part, of course, talks about the Consumer Reporting Act, and the second

part is the Technical Standards and Safety Act. When the minister did her hour lead, she really focused, at that time, on the Consumer Reporting Act.

One of the important pieces that we’re addressing in this legislation is the consumer scores. A lot of times, what happens is that these scores are released to businesses, to the detriment of consumers. Or there’s identify theft: People take your identity and then they rack up credit cards and they ruin your consumer reporting scores. Then you have to go back and make that right, and it’s nearly impossible. So, one of the good things in that part of the bill is that a consumer can initiate it to be frozen. They can freeze their consumer reporting. That’s a good thing in the bill.

When we heard from the member from Dufferin–Caledon, she talked about the Cunningham report and how there are recommendations in there to strengthen this bill. Our concern, on this side of the House, is that the Legislature is going to rise very shortly. It’s good that this bill is up here for debate, but I have concerns about whether or not it will actually get to the process of going through committee and consultations. I have my doubts about that.

It’s a good first step that we’re talking about it, but we need to get legislation enacted at some point in time, to protect our seniors from the elevator issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Dufferin–Caledon for final comment.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The member from London is absolutely correct: I focused exclusively on the elevator repair portion of Bill 8. I am confident that our critic, the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, will spend an equal amount of time on the consumer protection component of the credit reports when he does his debate in the coming days.

I still believe that you cannot pass legislation, talking about what you want it to be, if you haven’t actually spoken to the experts and reviewed the current situation, to prove that you can. The interest of stretch goals on the path of the government side cannot continue when we are starting to debate legislation and enacting legislation. Let’s actually do the due diligence. Let’s talk to the experts. Let’s study the reports that are already out there, and make sure that what is being suggested under Bill 8 can actually happen in the province of Ontario.

I go back to the recurring theme of “I don’t see that” with Bill 8. I see a lot of interest in how people want it to be. Nobody has an issue with an elevator they want working in their home or in their business. Nobody has an issue with that. What we have an issue with is, can you do it in the current situation, with the numbers in the skilled-labour workforce that we have and the challenges that we have? Please keep that in mind when we’re studying Bill 8.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

I recognize the minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, no further debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): There being no further business, the House is now recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today, we have some special guests in the Speaker’s gallery. I’ll mention the family for the tribute later, but first I’ll introduce former members. We have:

—Mr. David Warner, Speaker in the 35th Parliament and chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians;

—John Parker, MPP for York East during the 36th Parliament;

—David Turnbull, MPP for York Mills during the 35th and 36th Parliaments and MPP for Don Valley West during the 37th Parliament;

—Steve Mahoney, MPP for Mississauga West during the 34th and 35th Parliaments;

—Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments;

—Sandra Pupatello, MPP for Windsor–Sandwich during the 36th Parliament and MPP for Windsor West during the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments.

And I’m sure somebody would always want to meet this individual: Gloria Richards.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Her importance to Speakers cannot be understated.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Émilie Hominuk is the page captain today, and her grandparents are from the riding of Peterborough. In the members’ east gallery, I’d like to introduce Janet O’Rourke, John O’Rourke and her cousin Kristina Johnson. We’ll give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome today.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Tim, Nancy and Kelly Morgan from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome friends from my riding of Essex: Richard Wyma, who is the general manager of the Essex Region Conservation Authority; and Rick Fryer, who is the chair of the Essex Region Conservation Authority board. They’re here today for the conservation authority lobby day. We want to welcome them.

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’m happy to welcome the members from Conservation Ontario today—as we said, it’s Conservation Ontario day at Queen’s Park: Don MacIver, the chair; Mark Burnham, the vice-chair; Lin Gibson; Geoff Dawe; Dick Hibma, the outgoing chair after 12 years; and Kim Gavine, who is the general manager.

Let’s not forget that everyone is welcome at the reception following question period in rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce Ashley Collins, Carol Vigneau and Victoria Vigneau, who are here today. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I see in the Speaker’s gallery two distinguished planners in Ontario who, between them, helped plan a number of our local municipalities: Ed Sajecki and Barry Morrison. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I too would like to introduce Cathy Little, Sonya Skinner and Dick Hibma from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. A special shout-out to Dick for his 20 years that he was just acknowledged for in our great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Thanks for all you do.

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to introduce Shaminder Dhillon, the mother of one of our pages here and, of course, the wife of our colleague from Brampton West.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to welcome Mary Alberti, CEO of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. She is joined by George Bilof from the society’s board of directors. They’re in the members’ gallery, and I would like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome two hard-working staff from the Liberal Caucus Service Bureau. It’s their first time in question period. Please welcome Swaraj Mann and Warda Nasir to question period.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Chris Darling, who is at Queen’s Park today with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Welcome.

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: I forgot to welcome Bonnie Fox as well, who is here from Conservation Ontario, and the ministry staff who have been working on the memorandum of agreement with Conservation Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of my seatmate, the MPP for Brampton West, and on behalf of page captain Harsaajan Dhillon, I’d like to welcome his mom, who has already been recognized—and a good family friend of ours—Shaminder Dhillon, who will be in the members’ gallery this morning.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m not sure if he has been introduced, but I wanted to introduce the mayor of Newmarket, Mayor Geoff Dawe, who is here, I suspect, in his role as chair of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Welcome, Mayor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Point of order, the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I think I missed it, but when you were doing the introductions of the former parliamentarians in the audience, I did not have an opportunity to stand up and give them a round of applause. I would ask us all to stand up and applaud the people who are here today.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was a rather creative point of order. I’ve never heard one like that before. That’s wonderful.

Correction of record

Hon. Chris Ballard: I need to correct my record, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, I haven’t had enough coffee today. The mayor of Aurora is here. Welcome. I’m so sorry. That is an unbelievable faux pas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members have the right to correct their record.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): For the tribute, would all members please join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late Chris Stockwell, MPP for Etobicoke West during the 35th and 36th Parliaments, and MPP for Etobicoke Centre during the 37th Parliament, and Speaker in the 36th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his daughter, Victoria Stockwell; his son, Kale Stockwell, and his wife, Sarah O’Connor; his former spouse and the mother of Victoria and Kale, Charlene Thornley; his nieces Adrienne Stockwell and Taylor Knott; and many, many friends and former colleagues.

Welcome.

Chris Stockwell

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from Etobicoke Centre, Mr. Chris Stockwell, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

The member from Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my privilege to rise on behalf of Andrea Horwath and Ontario’s New Democrats to pay our respects to Chris Stockwell.

On paper, Chris’s political career is notable, even when viewed in short strokes—independent, ambitious young man wins a seat on municipal council, then goes on to a career as MPP, Speaker of the House and cabinet minister. Even amidst the controversy that accompanied the end of his career, Stockwell was a valued member of the PC caucus and drew the begrudging respect of his colleagues across the aisle, as a capable and worthy adversary who gave as good as he got. But as impressive as those accomplishments are, they only tell a very small part of the story.

While only a small number of Ontarians have had the privilege of sitting in these benches, Chris is among a handful of MPPs whose service stretched beyond the boundaries of riding and party.

I never had the chance of serving with Chris, but it’s clear from the research that he was a defining presence of life at Queen’s Park for his generation in a way that few others ever have been, which is no small feat when you consider that he never held the office of Premier or party leader during the course of his career.

Chris’s acerbic wit was a hallmark of his tenure as an MPP. Often, even the targets of his barbs couldn’t help but laugh at his well-timed heckles as he established himself in the early stages of his time at the assembly.

As one of the few rookie PC MPPs to win a seat in the NDP sweep in 1990, it was obvious that Chris knew how to handle a challenge; but his decision to run for Speaker in 1996 after being left out of Mike Harris’s cabinet is perhaps the defining moment of his political career. It was no secret that Stockwell did not have the support of the Premier in his bid for Speaker, but his relationships with both his PC seatmates and other MPPs helped him win the position, and he would go on to leave his mark on the world in more ways than one.

In the chair, Stockwell’s notable rulings against his own party further earned him the respect of his colleagues across the aisle, largely on the basis of his ability to partner his fierce partisanship with an authentic appreciation for the values and traditions of the assembly.

Speaker, it’s clear that Chris very much enjoyed the pageantry of the Speaker’s job, as I have heard stories of how he made dramatic motions with his robe and sat regally perched in the Speaker’s chair like a king on the throne.

Chris’s impact on Queen’s Park wasn’t limited to his fellow MPPs. Undoubtedly, the Clerks-at-the-Table have a few of their own Stockwell stories—in fact, probably too many to count and maybe some that they shouldn’t share. And because of his way with words, he fostered a special relationship with the press gallery of his day. However, it was his inclusion of his family into this role that would leave a unique imprint on the office. Actually, the member from Windsor–Tecumseh just told me a story about how Chris’s kids used to play ball hockey in the hallways. As a Gretzky, I can certainly appreciate them wanting to play hockey anywhere.

During his time as Speaker, Stockwell’s children were a fixture at Queen’s Park and continue to be so in perpetuity, as Chris made the point of including their presence in his official portrait, which commemorates his service. While we remember Chris for his contributions to public life, it was his commitment to his family that resonated most.

Today we are joined by members of Chris’s family in the Speaker’s gallery. Chris may have been the name on the ballot and the face in the public eye, but it’s clear that you, his family, were very much a part of his journey and essential to his success. I want to thank you for sharing Chris with the people of Ontario.

Applause.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I wasn’t done yet.

Although Chris left Queen’s Park in 2003, he never left politics. In the words of his obituary, he “was never far away from the pulse of politics, working as a political adviser, radio commentator and consultant on all things political.” As always, he carried the distinctive charisma and presence that made him stand out as an MPP.

In closing, I look forward to the tributes by the members—I believe the member from St. Catharines is going to speak and the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, as we pay our respects to a great parliamentarian.

Thank you, Chris, for your passion for both this great city and our great province. May you rest in peace.

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

Mr. James J. Bradley: This is a very difficult tribute to deal with in the House, because most of what I would like to say cannot be repeated in the kind of company that we have here today.

Chris was very colourful, if I may say, in much of what he had to say and in the choice of words that he would always make. So I wrote down a few words a few minutes ago that I thought would describe him very well: unorthodox, outrageous, irreverent, bombastic, ostentatious, loud, dramatic, incredibly funny, sometimes profane, excitable, intelligent, compassionate, likable—he had an infectious grin, of course—wide-eyed, quick-witted and politically incorrect. There used to be a show on television called Politically Incorrect. Stockwell would have been the person who could host that easily, because he was politically incorrect, but in a very nice way.

Yvan Baker, who is the member for Etobicoke, would love to give this tribute because he had the opportunity to attend a wake which some of us would like to have attended and didn’t get a chance to. It was held in west-end Toronto just before a holiday weekend. There was a gathering of Chris’s friends and admirers on that occasion, and one of them was Yvan Baker. It was very kind of him to permit me to eulogize Chris on this occasion.

There are many stories that you could tell about him, and some that you can’t tell. Gloria Richards, who is in the gallery today, could tell many of those stories, because from time to time there might be a gathering in the Speaker’s office—this doesn’t happen now—that would go well into the morning where matters of mutual interest were discussed, with refreshments provided by the then Speaker, Chris Stockwell. That’s the way he was. He could transcend political boundaries and political parties even though he was a strong Conservative.

I read a couple of things about him being a red Tory. I never saw Chris as being a red Tory. I remember one day he said to me—he was talking about the PC youth. He used another word instead of “PC” that I would never use in a chamber of this kind, but he said, “Bradley, you think I’m right-wing; you should see what the PC youth are like.” He did not, as I say, use the word “PC.”

He was prepared to, I think, be flexible on occasion, but always stuck to his principles. He may have been seen as a bit of a red Tory, because he certainly had a streak of compassion and something for the little person in our society. Again, you had to like him even when he was insulting you in a very nice way, always. You had to like Chris because of that.

There are many stories you could tell about him all the time. Some of you know that I am a hockey fan and a sports fan. One day, as we used to do, I called up two of our Speakers—Gary Carr and Chris Stockwell—and said, “Why don’t we go to a playoff hockey game in Buffalo?” So we had to pick up Chris in Etobicoke because he had insisted on being picked up there.

We arrived in Buffalo, and there’s a place called the auditorium club. You couldn’t get in unless you were properly dressed. In other words, blue jeans were not acceptable. You know Stockwell was wearing blue jeans. Only he would have the audacity to say to the maître d’ that it might be nice if one of the waiters’ pants could be provided to Chris so he could enter—not ones they were wearing; don’t worry. In fact, that happened. He was able to get in and enjoy it at that time. We had great conversations on the way.

We did support him, many of us, for Speaker, not just to stick our fingers in Mike Harris’s eyes—although that may have been, back in those days, one of the motivations one might think of—but because we thought he would be truly independent, and he was truly independent. It was an independent streak you don’t often see in politics. Even though he was a partisan, a PC partisan, he certainly showed that degree of independence.

When we had the all-nighter going on here at one time over a major piece of legislation and the House was brought to a standstill, I was sitting on that side of the House—yes, that side of the House on that occasion, as the opposition House leader. I said to him I was worried because we had been up all night. I wanted to go back to the apartment and perhaps get an hour’s sleep or so, but I was worried that Ernie Eves, who was the government House leader at the time, would come back and something would happen and I wouldn’t be there.

Stockwell’s answer—and I know Ernie won’t be offended by this—was, “Oh,” he said, “don’t worry about Ernie. He doesn’t get up until 10:30 and his hair won’t be ready until 11:15.” That was vintage Stockwell.

We also knew—and, particularly, I think members of the PC party would know—of the McCoys and the Hatfields, who had their battles. Well, the Fords and the Stockwells had their battles as well. On one particular occasion, Chris emerged victorious to take the nomination over Mr. Ford, who was at that time the sitting member. It was really a pitched battle. Chris said it was no-holds-barred and he emerged victorious.

Again, you often hear today how things are hyper-partisan and that they aren’t always as nice as we’d like them to be. But Stockwell, he had that smile. I’m going to use a couple of props that you see in the newspaper. That was Stockwell. He always had that infectious smile on his face, that mischievous grin, when he was really up to something. That made him extremely popular with all of us.

He was not afraid to confront the highest people in the province. When it was announced that he was not going to be a part of the executive council—or the cabinet, as we know it—he did, in a very expressive way, inform Mike Harris what he thought. They said something about F-bombs, and I don’t know what that means, but several were used on that occasion. I think Ted Arnott has a more benign way of saying it, but he did use colourful language to describe why he was annoyed with Mike Harris not making the logical choice of putting Chris Stockwell in cabinet. He was not afraid to insult even the most powerful people.

A reference was made to the 1990 election. This is where you really see something about a person—1990 was not a good year for the Progressive Conservative Party. They finished third. They got about 23% of the vote, yet Stockwell won a seat in that particular election, which was something you didn’t expect. You would have expected that maybe the NDP would have won it, because there was an NDP wave coming on that occasion, but Stockwell turned out to win that particular one.

When I think of him, I’ll always think of him with fondness, as all of us will, whether he was a municipal councillor, an MPP, a Speaker, a cabinet minister or a media darling.

The last thing I want to say, because reference was again made to this: You remember kids when they were kids. I remember the kids when they were kids, and down the hallway, if you looked down the Speaker’s hallway, there always seemed to be a ball hockey game going on at that particular time. You try to envision in your mind these kids, and of course they’re now grown up. He was very, very affectionate towards the family. He wanted to ensure the kids could come down and enjoy the Legislature but not be a nuisance—except when they were playing ball hockey in the hallway; they were a bit of a nuisance then.

There are people who are unforgettable in our lives and certainly in politics. One of the people in this House and another person I thought of was Peter Kormos, whom most of us knew as well. When you think of people like that, they are truly unforgettable. We are very grateful to the family for sharing Chris with us for the period of time they did, and I know the municipal people would say the same thing. He will be remembered forever in our hearts and in our minds and in our memories.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The greatest of parliamentarians, Winston Churchill, speaking about his fellow political colleagues, once said: “We are all worms, but I do believe that I am a glow-worm.”

I remembered that quote when I first heard that our friend Chris Stockwell had passed away on February 10, just over two months ago, far too young and too soon. Chris had that same glow, just like Churchill. It lit up every room he entered, every speech he delivered in this House and every interview that he gave. Like Churchill, Chris was a politician, yes, but he was also one of the most remarkable and able parliamentarians who has ever paraded through these halls.

But enough things Churchillian; we’re here to focus on things Stockwellian.

Chris Stockwell was the embodiment of Etobicoke—its neighbourhoods and its politics. Steve Paikin recently wrote that Chris Stockwell was maybe “the funniest MPP ever.” It’s true; Chris was very, very funny. While serving with him, it once struck me that Chris had the talent to make his living as a stand-up comedian. Later, it struck me: During his time as an MPP, he did make his living as a stand-up comedian.

From 1990 to 1995, during his first term in the Ontario Legislature, he quickly clued in to the potential TV audience tuning in to the then relatively new legislative channel. Our primetime slot soon became around 4:30 or so to 6 p.m., because that was when Chris would take the floor, virtually every day. We could have called it the Chris Stockwell Show: Live and Unplugged, but some days it would have been better called the Chris Stockwell Show: Live and Unglued.

It got to the point that the legislative channel’s ratings started to soar because people came to know that Chris would be speaking in the House and they began to plan their afternoons around it. It was an incredible time for this House.

Some of us in the PC caucus, who were modestly used to thinking of ourselves as the natural governing party of Ontario, found it a bit difficult to accept the humbling epithet of third-party status. We were at times frustrated and discouraged, but Chris single-handedly gave us the morale boost when we needed it the most. Energetic, exceedingly quick with a quip, sharp-tongued, sarcastic, dogmatic and a self-styled scrapper with no patience for hypocrisy or anything dull, his contribution in those years made him the class of the class of 1990.

Even though his criticism of Bob Rae’s NDP government made him the darling of the press gallery, I don’t recall his comments in this House as being overly personal. As a matter of fact, even though he deftly, and with precision, skewered them, there was always that grin on his face and that glint in his eye. In my memory, he was never mean-spirited towards our political adversaries—never mean-spirited. It’s something to think about today and remember in the coming weeks.

Of course he also took the time to learn the standing orders assiduously, so that one by one he could break each standing order systematically, which of course he did. That was why he was one of the most unlikely Speakers this place has ever had. He said that he’d have an easier time as Speaker than most MPPs would because if he was in the chair, he wouldn’t have Chris Stockwell to deal with. Unlikely, yes, but he shone as Speaker—again, that glow.

He came to be recognized as one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the Ontario Legislature. Many of his rulings were precedent-setting, based on his own sense of humour and what was right and what was true as he saw it.

He never lost his impish sense of humour, and I’m convinced sometimes he said bizarre things just to see if anybody was paying attention. One time, shutting down the House at the end of a long legislative day, he said, “This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. tomorrow, according to the clam chowder act.” His office would later get a call from Hansard staff asking if the Speaker had actually said that. His assistant Maxine McGuigan would dutifully confirm that, in fact, yes, Mr. Speaker had said that.

He presided over one of the longest and most protracted legislative impasses, not just in Canadian history but possibly in the history of the Commonwealth. Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, was intended to amalgamate Toronto and create the megacity, as the media called it, to drive greater efficiency and accountability and save money for taxpayers. The bill was very controversial at the time and apparently even inspired an activist or two to become involved in politics, one of whom became the Premier.

When the NDP tabled 13,000 amendments to the bill, we were here, stuck in the Committee of the Whole, voting on the amendments one by one. It went on and on, 24 hours a day, for nine days—one sessional day, April 2, 1997, that actually lasted nine calendar days.

Chris had to deal with many angry points of order from his former caucus colleagues. I remember one particularly heated exchange, and Chris pulled me aside and said, “Tell them they decided to go into the Committee of the Whole, and I can’t get them out.” Of course, he was right.

During that time, Speaker Stockwell, the Clerk and the table staff delivered 22 separate rulings, each one researched and written while everyone battled the exhaustion that accompanied the filibuster. He would tell Deputy Clerk Deb Deller, “Don’t worry. We’re on the side of the angels on this one.” Deb told me that his words had a calming effect on the table staff. I have to say that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say that Chris Stockwell had a calming effect on anybody.

As his tenure as Speaker came to a close, he faced an uphill battle to be nominated by our party to run again in the 1999 election. This was caused by the fact that we’d adopted the Fewer Politicians Act and were dramatically downsizing the Legislature from 130 seats to 103 seats—a net reduction of 27 MPPs—to take effect for the 1999 election.

While it was popular to reduce the number of provincial politicians, of course it also meant that a large number of our caucus members would have to run against each other in nomination battles, some of which were epic. And what a battle we had in the new riding of Etobicoke Centre. In the end, Chris prevailed and was nominated to run again for our party.

Our government was re-elected a few months later with a second, albeit reduced majority, and Chris was invited to serve in the cabinet as labour minister. This time, they dared not keep him out.

When the opportunity arose to seek the leadership of our party in 2002, Chris seized it and added colour and flair to the race. While he was not elected party leader the next year, he was appointed government House leader and Minister of the Environment and Energy, three onerous and significant responsibilities. He served in these roles with the same heart and determination to succeed which had been his hallmark going back to his first election to the Etobicoke board of control in 1982 at the age of 25, the youngest member they had ever had, and his term on metro Toronto council in the late 1980s.

We all know that in every political career, there are ups and downs. It’s the same for all of us who are privileged to serve in elected public office. We all have qualities which cause us to seek the opportunity to serve, and all of us who are elected have the backing of our constituents. This is what makes our service possible. We all seek to make a contribution, make our communities better, and the province a better place for our efforts. But we’re all human and fallible, and we all make mistakes. Nevertheless, we are sustained in the knowledge that every life is measured in its whole.

We all seek to ensure that the good we have done outweighs the regrets. We live and we learn; we give and we grow.

Chris Stockwell lived and learned, gave and grew. He was a great man who achieved great things. I considered him a friend and I am honoured to pay tribute to him today on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus.

We are joined today by the Stockwell family, whom Chris loved so much and who loved him as a son, husband, brother or dad. We thank them, just as we thank our own families, who sustain us with their love and support, but who also know the sacrifice that must be made in terms of time away from home as we do this job to represent our people.

Our former leader John Tory once said that if you looked up the word “maverick” in Webster’s dictionary, you would see a picture of Bill Murdoch beside the definition. I would add that if you look up the word “maverick” in the Oxford dictionary, you will see a picture of Stockwell.

I cannot speak for Chris Stockwell, but I know that just like Winston Churchill, Chris would expect us to stand up and fight for our constituents, stand up and fight for what we believe in, stand up and fight—and fight on principle—whatever the consequences and, if need be, remind those who believe it is only the party leaders that people vote for and who forget that Parliament matters as the collective voice and will of the people—to tell them to think again.

God bless Chris Stockwell.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to thank the members for their very heartfelt and kind words about Chris.

I do have one little anecdote that I would share, and that is regarding Gloria. She is writing a book, and she is probably going to dedicate a

chapter to Chris, and it’s the longest one.

Having said that, I also would share with you that I did hear that this hockey game that kept happening in the hallway—there was another member who was in the hallway who kept getting disturbed, and one day this member opened the door, grabbed the hockey ball and shut the door. He stole their ball. I won’t say anything about it being Gerry Phillips; I won’t say anything. But he did give the ball back.

We do thank you for the gift of Chris. You heard how much we held him in esteem. I can tell you that with only about 43 people in the history of Ontario sitting in this chair, I looked to his guidance and some of his examples of how to be a Speaker. I only wish I could be half as good as Chris was. Thank you very much.

It is therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning. My question this morning is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that a $6-million salary is acceptable for the CEO of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, we recognize that executive salaries are high compared to the vast majority of Ontario salaries. We remain committed to Hydro One’s regulation, accountability and transparency through our government’s involvement as a majority shareholder, Mr. Speaker.

That said, we’ve already seen the chaos created by the man in the White House who’s governing by firing people all the time, and that’s not working too well. The opposition’s gimmick and their leader’s gimmick will drag us down into that same mess and actually won’t do anything to reduce hydro bills either. The company’s rates continue to be regulated by the Ontario Energy Board; the member opposite knows that as well. The Ontario Energy Board is our province’s independent regulator which has a mandate to protect the province’s electricity consumers, and it continues to deliver on that mandate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: The Premier has said in the House on numerous occasions that with the sale of Hydro One—the very unpopular sale of Hydro One—she retained and the government retained the right to remove the board and ultimately remove the CEO. So I’ll ask the Premier again: Does she believe that a $6-million salary for the CEO at Hydro One is acceptable? Yes or no?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, making sure that we reduce rates for the people of Ontario is what this government chose to do, and that’s why we brought forward the fair hydro plan that reduced rates by 25%. What they’re talking about on that side of the House, what their leader is talking about, won’t reduce anything off anyone’s bills.

We actually brought forward a plan, which they voted against. They voted against a 25% reduction. That reduction, Mr. Speaker, they then decided to keep in their People’s Guarantee, and then immediately—well, not immediately; a couple of months later—they actually tossed that out and are now back as the party that has no plan when it comes to the electricity sector and helping people reduce their rates. We came forward with a plan and reduced those rates by 25%, and we’ll continue to advocate for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: The salary that they’re paying the CEO at Hydro One is five times the salary of the previous CEO. It’s 10 times the salary of his peers in other jurisdictions across Canada; $500,000 is the average salary for a CEO at a provincially run utility. It astonishes me that the Liberals will stand up in the House and defend this outrageous salary and compensation package of $6 million for the CEO at Hydro One.

Why won’t the Premier stand up in her place, after saying on numerous occasions that she retained the right and the government retained the right to remove the board and the CEO at Hydro One? My question for the Premier is, why are you defending your six-million-dollar man?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s actually this Premier and this government that are defending the people of Ontario from cuts that that party wants to bring in, Mr. Speaker. It is this party that is making sure that we brought forward a plan to reduce bills by 25%. They voted against it.

It is very clear what they will continue to do. They will continue to cut. They will bring forward bumper-sticker slogans, while we will bring substantive policy that actually helps the people of Ontario when it comes to the electricity sector. We’ve reduced rates by 25% right across the province. Hydro One customers have seen a reduction of anywhere between 35% and 50%, and they have voted against it each and every time. We will put policy over bumper stickers.

Government accounting practices

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Energy this morning. There remain serious questions about the Liberals’ very expensive hydro plan that the minister was just talking about. In regard to Ernst and Young, Deloitte and KPMG, the Auditor General has said the sum of all this work does not equate to approval of the accounting of their scheme and the financial books.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy: Is the Auditor General correct?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: Families in this province asked for real and immediate relief on their electricity bills, and that’s what we delivered. We made a policy choice—not a bumper-sticker slogan, but a policy choice, Mr. Speaker—to ensure that we continue to have clean, reliable and affordable electricity for the ratepayers of today and the ratepayers of tomorrow. The fair hydro plan keeps the cost of borrowing within the rate base, not the tax base, because that’s the logical thing to do.

Electricity financing should remain within the electricity system, so officials from the Treasury Board, finance, OPG, the IESO and the Ontario Financing Authority, along with external advisers that included EY, KPMG and Deloitte, worked with the accounting related to the fair hydro plan. They, along with the Office of the Provincial Controller, ensured that this plan was in accordance with public sector accounting.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: That was a lot of rubbish that really said nothing at all, Mr. Speaker. The fact that the minister can even refer to this very expensive hydro plan as “fair” is unbelievable to the people of Ontario, who are going to be paying record high electricity rates after the next election, because they’re doing nothing to address the cost of electricity in Ontario.

The Minister of Energy said this a while ago: “Our plan has been approved by her”—speaking of the Auditor General—“peers at some of Canada’s top accounting firms, like KPMG, E and Y, and Deloitte.” The Auditor General has said that that’s not true. Did the accounting firms really approve the plan? That’s what we want to know. To the Minister of Energy: Did those accounting firms really approve the plan?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is again up here criticizing a plan that has reduced electricity rates by 25% on average for all families and as many as half a million small businesses and farms. That plan is saving families in eligible rural and northern communities up to 40% and 50% on their hydro bills. First they voted against it, then they included it in their own platform just a few months back, and now their five-month-old People’s Guarantee is absolutely gone and so is any type of plan for the electricity sector.

But let’s see, Mr. Speaker, what two world-class accounting firms had to say in their statements regarding rate-regulated accounting. KPMG said, “On the basis of our extensive research, deliberations and an opinion from another major accounting firm, we believe that the accounting policies adopted by IESO are in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.”

Deloitte concluded that regulatory assets and liabilities recognized are appropriate to the applications of these policies—

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: And I’ll have more in the supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did spend a moment to try to see if you could go without my warning program put back into place. It took two rounds, but we are in warnings. We’re in warnings.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: The Minister of Energy said, “Of course, we’ve worked with KPMG; we’ve worked with EY; we’ve worked with Deloitte.... All of them agree that the accounting standards are accurate.” The Auditor General, an independent officer of the Legislature, has said that that’s not true. I think anybody looking at this will realize that we can trust the Auditor General a heck of a lot more than we can trust the Liberal government in Ontario.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: Was the minister telling the truth when he said these things?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, KPMG said, “On the basis of our extensive research, deliberations and an opinion from another major accounting firm, we believe that the accounting policies adopted by IESO are in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.”

Deloitte “concluded that any regulatory assets and liabilities recognized through the appropriate application of these policies would meet the criteria for recognition” under the Canadian public sector accounting standards. Additionally, Ernst and Young is OPG’s financial auditor and is consulted on an ongoing basis.

Finally, the officials that work within these departments—the Treasury Board, finance, OPG, IESO and the Ontario Financing Authority—worked on the accounting related to the fair hydro plan, and all agreed with the Canadian accounting standards that we’ve moved forward, Mr. Speaker. So we’ll continue to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. It’s now a new question.

Child care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Why does the Premier believe that a mom who wants to go back to work should have to wait till her child is two and a half years old before having access to child care that she can afford?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to say to the leader of the third party that I did read her platform in the dark, early morning, this morning, and as I went through the document, I had my pen, and it was like, “Okay, we’re already doing that. That’s in our plan. Oh, we disagree there.” But overall, there is a lot of common ground between what we’re putting forward and what the NDP has put forward. I’m happy to talk about some of the differences, but I think it is very, very clear that the real threat to the caring, supportive province that has been built up over decades is coming from Doug Ford, is coming from the Conservatives.

I’m happy to talk to the leader of the third party about where we differ, Mr. Speaker, because we do differ on a number of points.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, yesterday at the launch of the NDP platform, a young mom with her little baby in arms talked to me about wanting to make sure that her son had access to high-quality, not-for-profit child care so that she could go back to work, confident that her son was getting the best possible child care. But she also talked about how hard it would be to pay for it.

I don’t think that that mom or any parent should have to wait two and a half years for child care that they can afford. Why does the Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that what the leader of the third party is putting forward will actually reduce choice for people in this province, Mr. Speaker. My grandchildren went to a great little child care in Orangeville. All three of them went there before they got into full-day kindergarten. Under the leader of the third party’s plan, that child care would not be funded.

I believe that parents need to have choices. We know that two and a half years is when there is a real bulge of demand. That’s why what we’re proposing is free preschool child care for two-and-a-half- to four-year-olds, and we’ll continue to subsidize for zero to two and a half. The reality is that there needs to be choice.

There’s more common ground between us and the NDP than not. I appreciate that she has stepped up and has put child care in her platform.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the reality is that Ontario has the most expensive child care in Canada. Here in Toronto, it is the most expensive in the entire province. That didn’t just happen out of nowhere. It’s because the Liberals have ignored the expense of child care in this province for 15 years.

If this government, if this Premier were serious about affordable child care, we would already have it in Ontario.

Why did the Liberals ignore all of those parents for those 15 years and not bring affordable child care to Ontario for 15 years?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the leader of the third party for this important question.

I just want to make it clear that, on this side of the House, our Premier designated someone as minister responsible for early years and child care, and I want to point out that that’s the first time that has happened in the history of this province. We recognized more than a year ago, almost two years ago, that this was a priority, and we made it a priority.

While I’m pleased to see that the third party’s platform is embracing a number of key policies and priorities, many of them put forward by our party, we’re a little bit disappointed by the plan that they have put forward, which actually puts at risk many of the progressive policies that we’re moving forward with.

Let me just tell you some of the things that we’ve done. We’ve done an affordability study. We’ve done a workforce study. We’re building capacity for 100,000 more children in child care, and we are building that solid foundation to move to the next step.

I’m happy to answer more.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Toronto Life’s cover story is about a woman who spent 47 hours waiting for surgery in Sunnybrook’s ER with shattered wrists, a broken elbow, cracked ribs and internal bleeding. She was stuck in a hallway that was “noisy, with machines constantly beeping and people talking. There was nowhere for her husband and son to sit where they weren’t in the way. ‘It was like parking in a fire route.’ ... She was entirely dependent on the nurses, who, despite being clearly overloaded, she says, took excellent care of her. Rather than venting or getting snippy, they just kept apologizing.”

Does the Premier believe that that’s acceptable in Ontario in 2018?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s not okay whenever someone has a frustrating, difficult experience in a health care setting, whether it’s in a hospital or whether it’s at home. Of course that’s not acceptable.

We know—everyone in this House knows—that our front-line health care workers work every single day to make sure that they provide the care that people need when patients walk into their facilities. Our responsibility as government is to make sure that those front-line workers have the tools that they need. So we have continued to increase funding. We have continued to put supports in place for hospitals.

But we recognize that there’s more that needs to be done. It was $500 million last year—and this year in our budget, we’re including $822 million to support the front line and to support hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would suggest to the Premier that one of the tools that our front-line health care workers need in hospitals is beds and rooms for the patients, to do the important work that they do. That would be the most important tool.

The Ontario Hospital Association said this: “All across the GTA, you’ve seen hospitals spike as high as 140% at any given moment.” This is in reference to the occupancy rates, Speaker.

Hospitals need stable funding that recognizes the realities that they face. Getting people out of hallways means funding hospitals. I have a plan to do that, Speaker. The Conservatives under Doug Ford will privatize and further cut our hospitals and health care.

Why did this Premier create this crisis in the first place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t create an aging demographic. I may be part of that aging demographic, but I didn’t create it. I think it was the post-war baby boom that created an aging demographic.

What we have worked to do is put in place a continuum of care. I agree with the leader of the third party: We need to put more funding into hospitals. We have $822 million that we recognize needs to go into hospitals, on top of, every year, the increases that we’ve made—$500 million last year. But we recognize that there is more that’s needed.

We have been investing in home care. The reality is that more people are looking for care at home. They want to stay at home, which means that they are at home longer, and then when they get into long-term care or supportive housing, they are actually sicker and older. So we need to make sure that we build those long-term-care beds and continue to put supports in place so that people can get the care where they need it and when they need it, including in hospital.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, correct me if I’m wrong, but the aging demographic didn’t just start this year; it was there 15 years ago when this government should have been planning for proper investments in long-term care, in home care and in our hospitals. But instead they froze and cut our hospital budgets.

Here’s what the Toronto Life story continues to say: “Overstuffed hospitals are not just short on comfort and long on bad optics—crowding actually leads to more deaths.”

As Premier, I will call the crisis what it is—a crisis—and I will fix it. The Premier won’t even admit that there’s a crisis and so she won’t do anything to solve it. And we know for sure that as bad as things are with the Liberals, Doug Ford will make it even worse.

Why did this Premier allow things to get this bad, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, when I looked at the platform that the leader of the third party and their party is bringing forward, there’s a lot of common ground in terms of what we think the solutions are. We’ve said that we need to put $822 million into hospitals; there are a few million more that the third party is suggesting need to go into hospitals. We recognize that there need to be long-term-care beds built. The third party says we need to build long-term-care beds.

I agree with the leader of the third party that more needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that objective organizations have looked at our health care system and have said we have the best wait times in the country. We have a system that has the best survival rates for prostate, breast, colorectal and lung cancers, and life expectancy is higher than average, one of the highest in the OECD.

There’s more to be done but we have an excellent health care system in Ontario.

Government spending

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Liberals hosted four campaign-style events, and there are three more scheduled for today. They are clearly campaigning on the taxpayer dime each and every day, so I ask the Premier: Will the Liberal Party reimburse taxpayers for their campaign-style events?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I say to the member opposite, I completely understand why he doesn’t want me to be talking about a fair wage policy in this province. I completely understand why he doesn’t want me to be talking about child care, care for seniors or more funding for hospitals. None of those things would be possible under their leader, Doug Ford, because he’s going to cut across government.

Mr. Speaker, every year when we bring in a budget, we go out into the province and talk about that budget. That is what we are doing. That is what their party did. That is what the third party did. That is what governments do, to make sure that people understand what is in the budget so that they will know what to expect. That’s how it works, and I know the member opposite knows that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned, and a few others.

Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: You have told the people of Ontario that the budget you just presented in this House is your campaign platform, so that means every event you have is promoting your campaign platform, using your own bloody logic. Stop doing it. It’s wrong. Repay the taxpayers. The Liberal Party owes the taxpayers for thousands and thousands of dollars on these campaign-style events. Will you do the right thing and pay back the taxpayers?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier of this province is the elected leader of the province and of the government. In her capacity, she attends many events. In her capacity, she is out talking about important government policies that are going to improve the lives of Ontarians every single day. In that capacity, Speaker, she will speak about the budget that is providing a plan for care and opportunity.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Every family in Sudbury depends on our local hospital, Health Sciences North, and everyone who works there helps to provide excellent care each and every day, but this Premier’s inadequate hospital funding has forced Health Sciences North to plan to cut 113 jobs. That’s on top of the 352 jobs that have already been cut at northeastern hospitals because of this Premier’s cuts and freezes to hospital budgets.

Let me be clear: More cuts and layoffs at Health Sciences North are completely unacceptable to the good people of Sudbury and the northeast.

Why doesn’t this Premier get it, and why is she still underfunding northeastern hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t know if the member knows that over the past two years we’ve actually increased funding to Health Sciences North by $10 million. There’s been a substantial increase in funding to this organization.

I know that the ministry has been working to understand the financial pressures that have been identified at Health Sciences North. That work is ongoing. The ministry is working to support the Health Sciences North efforts to deliver patient-centred quality care, as well as to achieve financial sustainability. But to suggest that this hospital, this system, has not been supported is just not accurate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, I saw something that I had never seen in my 10 years as health critic: On Wednesday, the board chairs of Health Sciences North, Timmins and District Hospital, Sault Ste. Marie hospital and North Bay Regional Health Centre took the unprecedented step of writing to the North East LHIN about how the lack of hospital funding “threatens basic financial survival.” It’s worth repeating: “threatens basic financial survival.”

The leaders of our northern hospitals are ringing the alarm bells. Their resources are shrinking, and they face huge shortfalls once again this year. We all know what that means. It means longer wait-lists. It means hallway medicine. It means fewer services for the people of the northeast. Frankly, this is the last thing we need.

As the Premier enters her last 50 days in office, does she care enough to stop the damage that she has done and finally do something to help northern hospitals?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to talk to the member, but what the member has said really does not accurately represent the situation.

So $10 million over the last two years—the ministry is working to understand the financial pressures that have been identified at Health Sciences North. We’ve been working closely with the LHIN and the hospital to ensure that there’s no impact on patient care in the community. That’s exactly why the ministry is supportive of the LHIN’s decision to not support Health Sciences North’s proposed plan, and the hospital will be required to undertake an independent third-party review to look at potential strategies and mitigate any broader health system and patient impacts.

We’ve advised the hospital and the board that we’re fully supportive of the North East LHIN’s resolution. The ministry is working closely with them. We do care, absolutely, about patient care in Sudbury.

Public transit

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In addition to the many developments in Etobicoke North—for example, Etobicoke General Hospital, Humber College and new schools—I know about the pressing need to improve transit in the west end of Toronto. That’s why the strategic investments in transit will improve options for commuters regardless of where they live in Toronto or, in fact, the wider region.

I know that our government is moving forward on a number of projects that will make transit a more efficient option. For example, in my own riding of Etobicoke North, we have right now under way the Finch West LRT, a billion-dollar expansion with eight stops from Humber College and Westmore all the way to Kipling and Islington.

But beyond that, I’d like to ask the minister: Could she provide more information on how our government is making more progress connecting more Etobicoke residents to our regional transit network through the Kipling Mobility Hub?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for his question and his unrelenting advocacy on behalf of his community.

The way people move around the GTHA isn’t the same as it was a decade ago, let alone five years ago. As a former resident of Etobicoke, I see the changes in the west end of Toronto. More and more people are making the switch to transit because they see it’s a convenient alternative to them taking their car.

But we know that there’s more work that needs to be done. A huge part of that is bringing together different forms of transit, including the bus, the GO train, Toronto’s subway system and cycling in an integrated way. That’s why the Kipling Mobility Hub is such an important project and why I’m so pleased to say we now have shovels in the ground to see this project to completion. This project will not only serve commuters in Etobicoke but also those coming from surrounding communities like Mississauga.

It’s a great day for transit riders and for those looking to hop on board. I look forward to saying more in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I’d like to thank the minister not only for the answer but also for the integrated plan, which will benefit so many residents in the GTHA.

This past Friday, I know colleagues—for example, the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for poverty reduction, and the member for Etobicoke Centre—were excited to join TTC chair Josh Colle, Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie and Metrolinx COO Greg Percy to make an exciting announcement. Kipling already brings together GO Transit, the TTC and MiWay buses, so of course, it is a natural next step to bring them together in a more seamless, commuter-friendly way. I have heard from members in my own community who are excited to see how this project will unfold.

While our government has a proven track record of investing in projects like this one at the future Kipling Mobility Hub, not all parties see the value of investing in transit. As an example, as you might anticipate, Speaker, the Ontario Conservative Party is just running on empty, ready to slash, cut, claw back and trump up our social deficit.

My question is: Can the minister please provide the members of this House with more information?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for that supplementary question. I’d also like to thank the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy for making this project a reality. As a city councillor, he fought tirelessly for the Kipling Mobility Hub, which I used to live nearby, and I’m so happy to see that his hard work is paying off.

When this project is complete, it will seamlessly bring together municipal and regional transit systems to make it easier to move, for example, from Mississauga’s MiWay on to the subway or to the Milton GO line. At the same time, it will improve connections for those commuters who are looking to access the station by bike or by foot.

It’s a huge step forward, but it’s only one part of the plan. We’re moving forward with a historic $21.3-billion transformation of our GO network. At the same time, we’re making your commute more affordable through initiatives like reducing the cost of transferring between GO and the TTC.

Pharmacare

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this morning I was joined by the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Treatment Society and cystic fibrosis patients who urgently require access to the life-saving drug Orkambi. Unfortunately, this government’s back-of-the-napkin approach to OHIP+ coverage has resulted in children like Victoria—who is here today—unable to receive the life-saving treatment that she needs.

My question to the Premier is, why is the Minister of Health doing nothing to help the thousands of children requiring these life-saving drugs? And please refrain from talking about the Exceptional Access Program.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we have every sympathy for people who are struggling to look after themselves, look after their families. Cystic fibrosis patients and their families struggle with the debilitating effects of this disease and look for hope in each new drug that comes forward. I understand that and we empathize with them. We want these people, we want these individuals and families to know that we are committed to finding solutions.

If we weren’t, we would not have put in place OHIP+, which provides free prescription medication for young people from their birth until their 25th birthday for 4,400 medications, for all of the medications that are on the formulary. If we didn’t care about this, we wouldn’t have put that forward.

What we know is that there is obviously more that needs to be done as drugs are tested and more drugs come on the formulary. But we are committed to finding those solutions, working with the scientists and with the sector to make sure that children and families get the support they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Premier, OHIP+ has caused many barriers and actually reduced access to life-saving treatments for children across this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: If the government truly cared about children with cystic fibrosis—it has been over two years since this government has even tried to sit down with the makers of Orkambi to come up with a price. You have to negotiate to get these medications onto the formulary.

Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of OHIP+ failing Ontario’s youth. Children aren’t able to get their anti-seizure medication. Children aren’t able to get the medication to help them to breathe. They’re losing access to medications they have had for years.

Contrary to this government’s talking points and this Premier, no one here is against youth coverage. We want to see OHIP+ dealt with in a competent manner.

My question to the Premier: Will you stand up now and admit your policy has failed and—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Appreciating the sensitivity of the question and the answer, I will ask all members to come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: With all due respect, the member opposite must have taken his chutzpah medicine this morning, to have the nerve to stand up and to challenge this government on our record of putting in place support for children getting access to medication. It’s quite unbelievable.

I understand that there are other medications that will need to go on the formulary, but the fact is that what this party is going to do is cut across the board. This man is a member of a party that (

a) does not support the plan that we’ve got in place, and (

b) is going to cut any access that young people would have to any of those medications.

Mental health services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Dawn and Dave Warren have spent years trying to get better mental health services in London, and they have experienced first-hand the crisis of hallway medicine too. When Dawn needed urgent care, she was rushed to the hospital by ambulance, but instead of getting a proper bed, she was put on a gurney, and not just for a few hours but for five days. That is completely unacceptable.

When people like Dawn and Dave need urgent mental health care, they need to be able to get it. No one—no one—who needs mental health services should ever fall through the cracks. Why does the Premier keep letting this happen and keep letting families in London suffer without the mental health care services that our city needs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I completely agree with the member opposite that that should not happen. As I’ve said many times in public, as a society, we are building a mental health care system that really hasn’t existed in the past. Forty years ago, there was not the awareness of mental health challenges. We have put more money in mental health.

As part of our budget, we’ve announced the single biggest investment in mental health and addictions care in Canadian history: $2.1 billion in new funding for programs that will literally reshape the mental health care system and provide more access for points of care that will provide more ability to navigate the system. We’ve had expert advice on how to do that.

I guess my question to the member opposite is why, in their platform, are they promising $500 million less than we have put forward?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Our city needs a transformation of mental health care services. The mental health unit at London Health Sciences Centre is so overcrowded, it has been running at up to 165% occupancy. That’s more than double the safe occupancy levels. Local psychiatrists have gone public saying that mental health supports continue to deteriorate, especially as the demand for services grows. People like Dawn and Dave Warren, who count on our hospitals to provide the care they need, have been left bitterly disappointed by the overcrowding crisis that left Dawn on a hallway gurney for five days

It shouldn’t be this way. New Democrats have a plan to end hallway medicine in our hospitals and transform mental health care for the better. Why doesn’t the Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We do have a plan, and in fact, the New Democrats’ plan is $500 million less for mental health funding than our plan. We agree. I said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve said that on top of the mental health supports that we have already put in place, there’s more that needs to be done; $2.1 billion is what we have been advised is needed. That is the investment that we’re going to make.

The NDP is proposing to put less money than that into mental health supports. It makes no sense and flies in the face of the question that the member opposite is asking.

Environmental protection

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

As this week is Earth Week, I urge all members of the Legislature to encourage their constituents to do their

part in protecting the environment. This could include small actions like I used to do in my classroom, such as taking the class out to clean up in the neighbourhood, recycling, taking public transit and reducing energy consumption.

In Ontario, we’re making it easier for everyone to do their part by investing in cycling infrastructure and energy efficiency retrofits. Our cap on pollution for businesses has so far generated $2.4 billion in funding for green programs that help Ontarians participate in the fight against climate change while saving money.

Speaker, can the minister please explain to the House how Ontario is taking action to protect our environment?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member from Barrie for that important question and highlighting that this is indeed Earth Week, and this coming Sunday is Earth Day.

As the member mentioned, we’ve taken a number of significant actions to help protect the environment here in Ontario. That includes our cap on climate-changing air pollution. That cap, through the cap-and-trade system, has raised $2.4 billion in proceeds in just over a year, and we are investing every single penny of those proceeds in green initiatives to fight climate change.

Let me tell you about one, our GreenOn retrofits, which are allowing residents to make their homes more efficient at an affordable cost and helping folks fight climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Third-party experts agree that our cap on pollution is the best plan to reduce pollution at the lowest price possible. We know that now is not the time to back away from action on climate change. Just yesterday, California governor Jerry Brown was here in Toronto and he said, “Look, the scientists are clear; the world is clear through the Paris agreement; the biggest country in the world, China, is clear. So that’s where the world is headed.” Governor Brown also said, “Scrapping cap-and-trade would be foolish.” I repeat, it “would be foolish.” Who would do that, Speaker?

In Ontario, we’re proud that climate change activists around the world are acknowledging the work our province is doing to reduce pollution and fight climate change. Can the Minister please explain what actions this government is taking to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight climate change?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you again to the member from Barrie for that important question. We were delighted to have Governor Brown here in Toronto yesterday to talk about the importance of fighting climate change and the inevitability of fighting climate change. It is a real thing, Speaker, as much as the PCs might like to turn tail and hide from it. It is here. It is real. We have to deal with it.

We would have enjoyed having Governor Brown in the House, as all folks would have, but the PCs denied us the opportunity to have Governor Brown come to speak about climate change in the Legislature. Climate change should be a non-partisan topic. All parties should agree that climate change is real.

Speaker, the Conservatives have abandoned their carbon tax and they’re walking away from any action to deal with climate change.

Minimum wage

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the Globe and Mail ran a story describing the negative impacts that Bill 148 has had for Ontarians with intellectual and physical disabilities. Jobs for people with disabilities are being lost as a result of the rapid increase in the minimum wage, combined with the Liberals’ elimination of the sheltered workshops program.

As Susan Wahlroth, the mother of an adult with Down syndrome who lost his job, said in the Globe article, “But for these workers, having a job, even one with a smaller paycheque, gave them a sense of purpose.”

How can the minister justify playing crass political games with the minimum wage when the Liberals’ policies are clearly hurting some of the most vulnerable among us, Ontarians with intellectual and physical disabilities?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, crass political games are not what were intended by Bill 148. What Bill 148 intended was to raise the living—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, the premise of the question, as I understand it, is that despite the Human Rights Code in this province, the member opposite is prepared to pay somebody who has a challenge, whether that be physical or mental—is prepared to pay them less, is prepared to treat them less—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned, and the member from Haldimand–Norfolk is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, what Bill 148 did, and what the Conservatives voted against, was that if you were working in the province of Ontario and you were putting in your 35 or 40 hours a week, you would be able to pay your way; that you would be able to pay expenses for your family, that you would be able to pay the rent, that you would be able to put food on the table and buy diapers for the kids. We’re in favour of that on this side of the House. It’s a shame they aren’t.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: More of the political ga