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

March 23, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-23 (PDF)

L152 - Wed 23 Mar 2016 / Mer 23 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 March 2016 Mercredi 23 mars 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Jim Hillyer

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Special-needs students

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Goodwill Industries

Steel industry

Water quality

Rural economic development

Special-needs students

Hydro rates

Health care funding

Heritage conservation

School nutrition programs

Pesticides

Gloria Richards

Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Gloria Richards

Visitor

Bangladesh Independence Day

Estimates

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Pope John Paul II

Northern health services

Syrian refugees

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Earlton Farm Show

Cambridge Self-Help Food Bank

Spread the Net Student Challenge

Community awards

Carefirst Seniors and Community Services Association

Gloria Richards

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

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

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Correctional services

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Health care funding

Health care funding

Elder abuse

Special-needs students

Lung health

Health care funding

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Employment standards

Hydro rates

Caregivers

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Orders of the Day

Supply Act, 2016 / Loi de crédits de 2016

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 22, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

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

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I am proud to stand today and have the leadoff for Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, as we begin second reading of this bill. I’m sure we’ll hear quite a bit of good discussion going forward and take this bill to committee, and have quite a few deputations so that we can come out with a bill that’s suitable for the people of Ontario.

Interjection: Good morning.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Good morning to you.

In preparing for this bill, I’ve really noticed how much we’ve changed over the last 20 years with regard to smoking. I remember back in the late 1970s, I was eight or nine years old, and on Sundays I would go to my father’s pharmacy and do odd jobs just to hang out with my dad, listen to the baseball game and learn about the business. One of the tasks he gave me was taking the great big ashtray, near where people dropped off the prescriptions, and cleaning it. It was chock full of butts from people. It was amazing at the time: You’re in a pharmacy, a health facility, giving medication to people to make them healthy, and you’re allowed to smoke while you’re waiting for your prescription.

That’s something that’s burned in my memory, because I really can’t stand smoking. It doesn’t sit right with me. It really irritates my sinuses. The fact that it was 30-some-odd years ago—and the pages never lived through this; you missed that, I guess, if that’s excitement for you. But 30-some years ago you were allowed to smoke inside buildings, and waiting for your doctor, you’d have a cigarette.

It’s really interesting: My family doctor smokes. I do remember going to his building, and he and his staff would be smoking in the side room before they came to see you. He would just stink of smoke when he would come and check my blood pressure and stuff.

Another aspect I remember is, in the 1990s I went to Poland; we had a family trip to Poland. I flew LOT Airlines, which was the Polish airline. You had to request a smoking or non-smoking seat in an airplane. So at the back of the plane you were allowed to smoke; in the front of the plane, you were fine. I just find it really interesting that we didn’t think the second-hand smoke would just drift to the front of the plane anyway. When you have a lot of nervous flyers, they smoke an awful lot to help maintain their nerve. It was a terrible flight: nine hours there, with people smoking in the plane, and nine hours coming home.

The other thing that the pages won’t ever get to experience, thankfully, I remember in my twenties going to the bars at night.

Hon. David Zimmer: What?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Yes, I did that in my twenties. I kind of cut back after I got married, but in my twenties I’d go to the bars.

In the morning, you’d wake up and you would just stink of smoke. It was unbelievable. People smoked all the time in the bars. You didn’t realize, at the time, the amount of second-hand smoke you were probably inhaling continually. You’d feel bad for the people who had to work there and put up with it every day; I only had to put up with it on Saturday nights.

We’ve seen a lot of changes through the years with regard to cutting down on smoking in the system, and ensuring that the people who are smoking are in certain areas that aren’t affecting non-smokers and that they’re not causing any ill effects. Thank goodness they’re not smoking in pharmacies anymore. It was a terrible job cleaning out ashtrays, and it’s terrible for the profession.

I know a pharmacist in London, Jim Semchism. He owns a family pharmacy. His dad owned a pharmacy, and he’s got brothers and sisters who are pharmacists throughout the London area. Much like my family’s in St. Thomas, his is the same in London. He led the charge to remove tobacco from pharmacies in Ontario. He took a lot of flak for it, but, at the end of the day, I think it was a good message to send to people that pharmacies are a place of health and not a place to be purchasing tobacco products. So I’m grateful.

The other thing you’ll probably see if you go to the States now—I mentioned the pages—is that in restaurants you’ll get asked, “Smoking or non-smoking?” If you stay in Canada long enough, you forget that, and you’re kind of shocked when you walk in and go, “Jeez, we’ve got to figure out if it’s smoking or non-smoking.”

I’m also happy that other changes were made here. I brought forth a bill, Ryan’s Law—it will be a year this May that it passed—which allowed students to carry their inhalers in schools. It has nothing to do with smoking, but it has something to do with lung health. I’m proud that it has been implemented through the school system, and I know that schools were quick to act on it and allow their students to carry their puffers.

I’m glad we’re here to speak about Bill 178. I think this bill is here because something was missed in Bill 45—it should have been included. I know there was a little bit of a rush when Bill 45 came out and this was missed; it’s something that could have been added. I guess my one offer of advice for the government is that when they do have to add something they missed in another bill, maybe they could take a look at other bills that are sitting, waiting to be debated, and incorporate them into the bill so we have a meatier bill, something where we can utilize our time.

There are a number of bills that they could incorporate into the healthy smoking bill to kind of take care of the backlog of private members’ business and also ensure that we get passage of the bill and utilize our time here.

I will make mention of Bill 41, the Lung Health Act. It’s by the MPP from Cambridge. She has brought forth this bill, and we’ve had petitions in the House on numerous days asking the government to bring it forward and debate it. This is a bill that probably could have been included in this smoke-free act. It would create a lung health advisory council, and the purpose of the council would be to make recommendations to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care about lung health issues. When you’re discussing the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, why not discuss lung health as a whole?

The council that would be created would include an employee from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, a member of the Ontario Lung Association—which I admit has been very supportive of lung health measures in this chamber, and was quite supportive of Ryan’s Law and continues to be—and there would also be members of this council who are interested concerning lung health. The Ontario Health Quality Council would be responsible for providing an annual report card, tabled in the Legislature, with respect to the minister’s performance in undertaking the recommendations of this council.

Finally, the minister, with the consideration of this council and a report from the Ontario Health Quality Council, would develop and implement an Ontario lung health action plan to target research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of lung disease.

That bill is currently in the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, which is a committee I sit on. We have yet to hear any deputations in taking that bill forward, and we would like to see this bill go forward.

We understand how important lung health is, and this was an opportunity to include this bill. The government has done it before. The member from Sarnia–Lambton, Bob Bailey—his bill on the tax credit for farmers to give to food banks was incorporated in a government bill that they brought forward, and it took Bob’s bill out of the private members’ backlog. It was passed. Bob was showing me a great email he received that food donations are way up from farmers because this tax credit is available, and it’s providing people who need to use food banks access to fresh produce and meat. That was a plus-plus, and it was something that was worked on.

So that was my one aspect to the government that was making up for rushing through a bill and having to bring this out. Maybe the next time they can incorporate some of the private members’ bills that are in the backlog. Another one that they have from the member from Etobicoke North is his bill on radon, the radon awareness bill. That’s been repeated over and over and over. It would have been an opportunity to bring that bill inclusive into it.

I think it’s very, very interesting that we are having this discussion to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. We’re having to deal with this bill because it was missed in Bill 45, this aspect of it. Unfortunately—which we’ve totally done numerous times, especially at committees—when you rush a bill, you run into problems and you have unintended consequences due to the nature of having to expedite a bill.

Basically, this bill came forth and had to be put forward because back in November, the government was announcing one day that medical marijuana could be smoked wherever they pleased, and then 24 hours later, with the backlash of the public, they decided they needed to take a second look at this.

If the proper consultations were done previously into drafting Bill 45, we probably could have avoided that whole situation, avoided this bill being here, and we could have been either not discussing this bill and discussing something else that the people of the province want, or they could have brought this bill forward and, again, as I mentioned earlier, included some of the private member bills that have been waiting and waiting to be incorporated and put through this Legislature.

Basically, this bill will prohibit the use of prescribed products and substances anywhere where tobacco is currently prohibited. It targets combustible materials. That’s not including e-cigarettes or vape products. That part was done in Bill 45, and the government is currently doing consultation on the regulations in Bill 45 with regard to vaping. I seriously hope they’re listening to the owners of vape businesses and trying to work with them to ensure that they don’t legislate this group out of business.

I’d hate to see people having to purchase their vape products online from a vendor—who knows where the product is coming from?—or if they try to mechanically fix their vape product on their own, the chances of the device possibly exploding or other things. I think these people that run the vape products are trained to make sure that the product is operating properly, and I hope the government continues to work with this group as they develop the regulations.

This bill amends other things as well.

Section 10 of the original bill will be repealed.

Section 10 states that a person who owns or occupies a place where the smoking of tobacco is prohibited must ensure that signs referring to the prohibition are posted in accordance with the regulations. They’ve reworded

section 10 to expand this obligation to include signs referring to enforce the prohibittion and specify how an element of the offence can be proved in a prosecution.

Subsection 14(2) of the bill is amended to specify that inspectors can enter places where the smoking of a prescribed product or substance is prohibited for the purpose of assessing compliance with the prohibition. Clauses 14(8)(

f) and (

g) of the original Smoke-Free Ontario Act are amended to specify that inspectors can issue compliance directives to employers and proprietors who fail to comply with their obligations under

section 12.1.

Section 15 of the original bill is amended to provide that each person who violates the no-smoking restrictions or the employer-proprietor obligations in

section 12.1 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a maximum fine ranging from $250 to $5,000 for individuals and between $100,000 and $300,000 for corporations.

Subsection 19(1) of the old bill is amended to authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make certain regulations respecting prescribed products or substances, including regulations which specify how an offence for smoking a prescribed product or substance in a prohibited place can be proved in a prosecution.

It’s a lot of words spoken, but basically it’s taking anything that is combustible and inhaled and ensuring that they follow the rules of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act much like they do with cigarettes. So whatever is coming down the line that enters into the marketplace can be dealt with at that time as opposed to having bill upon bill continually coming back, dealing with the same issue.

This bill is also dealing with the medical marijuana usage that this government originally allowed in November and then turned around and changed their minds on because of the backlash and actually had a second to think about the issue. They stated that the exemption would include everything from movie theatres to restaurants, offices, stadiums, playgrounds and even here in the Ontario Legislature. They noted that employers, restaurant owners and other business owners could overrule these exemptions and cease medical marijuana use within these organizations.

Business owners could also voice and demand some sort of verification if they’re allowing the smoking of medical marijuana on their properties. They tried to sneak that exemption through, since it only affected a limited amount of Ontarians. But reading the literature, there are about 23,000 Canadians who have prescriptions for medical marijuana, and even though the ministry claimed to have consulted prior to allowing this regulation, they had to consult again. Four months later, we have this new legislation, and it’s going to prohibit it in certain places where tobacco is prohibited.

I think it’s a great idea. As I mentioned earlier about second-hand smoke from tobacco, I’m glad it’s moved far away. People have the right to smoke, and I agree with “You can do what you wish.” It’s not always good behaviour, but sometimes people use tobacco not only for enjoyment but also as medicinal to settle their nerves. I know of quite a few of my customers at my pharmacy who need to smoke. It helps relax them. Smoking also is important when you are quitting and you are on different types of medications, so always check with your pharmacy as you’re cutting back.

Tobacco smoking can affect the metabolism of certain medications—not a lot of them, but certain ones—and if you decrease the amount you’re smoking, your metabolism is going to change and you might actually get an increase of the medication in your system. So if you are quitting smoking, which is a great idea, it would always link in with your pharmacist; there’s one at every corner of every street in this province, I believe. Work out a plan with them to ensure that your medications are adjusted and to also give you support as you decide to quit smoking.

So back to the medical marijuana part of the issue, Mr. Speaker. Due to the second-hand smoke, I think it’s not in the public’s interest to have medical marijuana smoked wherever you please. I think there’s a time and a place to take your medication, and that’s what medical marijuana is: It’s a medication. It’s not something for pleasure; it’s something you’re needing to take to deal with a condition, the disease you may have. As such, as with any medication, there are side effects, and second-hand smoke from medical marijuana may not be beneficial for those others around you in the public.

I think allowing them certain areas, which this bill will allow for them, to partake in their medication is better. I would imagine the majority of medical marijuana users would stay at home anyhow due to their condition. They could

schedule their lives around taking their medication, much like other medication forms where people are scheduled taking their medication, ensuring that they’re not smoking in movie theatres or restaurants or wherever. It’s imperative that the public has an understanding and that those needing medical marijuana are smoking in the places that are prescribed for them.

I mentioned Bill 45 earlier. Last year, when we had a discussion on Bill 45, the government targeted a number of things. One of them, which I mentioned earlier, was the Electronic Cigarettes Act. There were a number of amendments, which included: the prohibition of the sale of promotional items together with tobacco products; the sale of flavoured tobacco products; the list of places that an inspector is specifically empowered to enter was broadened; adjustments were made to the penalty and prohibition provisions; and the power to prescribe places for the purposes of the act was also amended to provide for exemptions.

There were also a number of amendments to the Electronic Cigarettes Act, which included: the prohibition of the sale and supply of electronic cigarettes to persons under the age of 19; restrictions were placed on the display and promotion of electronic cigarettes; the sale of electronic cigarettes in certain places was prohibited; a provision was made for regulating packaging of electronic cigarettes and for regulating the sale of flavoured electronic cigarettes; the use of electronic cigarettes becomes prohibited in enclosed work spaces and enclosed public spaces; and the amendments that are outlined in Bill 178 should have been included at the same time they did this.

I’ve spoken to a couple of owners of shops in my riding, and they’re for limiting the sale of electronic cigarettes and ensuring that youth don’t get access to these products. Their concern is—and I know the government is consulting with them; I hope they’re listening to them—the vape device that they utilize:

(1) They have to teach people how to use it properly, so they have to turn it on, and (2) when they have to fix it, they have to have the ability to turn it on. Right now, where they’re leaning with the regulations, that might be banned for them to do so inside their shop.

I’m hoping there’s a workaround somewhere along the line that’s not going to be too expensive to the owners of the shops which allows them the ability to turn on the device in order to teach someone how to use it and/or fix the product. The simple solution of sending them outside isn’t going to do. It’s ridiculous, especially when we have our cold winter days or it’s raining; it’s just not feasible. You can’t really ask a business to do that.

They sat down and they showed me their business and what they go through to help people quit smoking. That’s the main use of these electronic cigarettes: It gets people off the nicotine and tobacco product to a straight nicotine product, and then they can wean themselves off. It’s much like the patch that you have in pharmacies or the inhaler device. You’re transferring from the actual cigarette to a product that doesn’t have all the cancer-causing agents in it that you’re inhaling.

You’re cut down to the nicotine in some sort of solution, probably a water base, that you inhale, and you can slowly cut down your dosage. It’s much like the patch. Quite often in the pharmacy, I’ve seen people have to try quitting numerous times before they’re successful. It’s a tough go. Tobacco is quite addictive; it’s quite hard to get off.

The pages here—hopefully you haven’t started smoking yet. I would suggest not even trying it, staying away from it. When you talk to anybody who has smoked for a long time, they always regret starting. So to avoid that regret, do something else with your time. Stay away from tobacco products.

The fact that these devices help people quit smoking is a reason why the government needs to work with these places to ensure that they’re able to continue their business and ensure that the devices are safe and the people utilizing them understand their use. It’s not a complex tool, but the different advantages of using it need to be shown.

That was in Bill 45, and as I said, this Bill 178 is making up for the fact that what’s in Bill 178 was missed in Bill 45 due to the rush.

I think the other thing that could have been placed in Bill 178 is the whole issue of contraband tobacco. It’s something that, for some reason, the government doesn’t seem to want to deal with. If you look at the charts, the smoking rates are decreasing, but I think if you went and looked at contraband tobacco sales, they’re increasing. Unfortunately, I think they’ve just switched. The sad

part is that we get a lot of tax dollars from tobacco sales that this government needs. They overspend, so they need to make up for that money they’ve overspent. That money is just going to the illegal tobacco trade.

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: What’s that?

Hon. James J. Bradley: On all the things you ask for in question period every day to spend on.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: We’re just showing you how to spend the money that you have.

Anyway, so this illegal tobacco trade is flourishing. Anybody in the riding probably sees it day to day. People talk about it openly and the fact that they all access their cheap cigarettes. It’s unfortunate. This was another opportune time. They had a bill which was basically saying, “We’re going to treat anything that comes out like cigarettes, like cigarettes, and make sure we don’t have to deal with it in this bill.” So it’s not a complex bill that we’re debating here, but it was an opportunity to include other things.

I’ve mentioned Kathryn McGarry’s law, the Lung Health Act, the radon law that we could have added in, but contraband cigarettes are something we could have totally tackled in order to crack down on not only the illegal situation that has grown in the province but also decreasing the harmful risk of smoking within our province.

Tobacco claims too many lives: 13,000 Ontarians die every year due to tobacco. That’s about 36 people a day. I think everyone probably has a story of someone who got lung cancer somewhere along the line in their family and passed away too early. My uncle Lou died when he was 69. My grandparents lived into their nineties. You just think, if he had the same lifespan, he died 30 years before he should have. He quit smoking. He quit smoking the day after he found out he had lung cancer. That’s too bad.

So I think there’s something we can do, not only in the normal marketplace but with the illegal trade going on with the contrabands. We need to do better. We have the power here at the Legislature to create rules and regulations to clamp down on the illegal activity which is leading to people’s ill health instead of sitting back and ignoring it. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings—usually behind me, but to my back left; now he’s behind me. He has a great bill out there to help start dealing with contraband cigarettes, and I do have some notes on that; I’ll have to get to that.

I will get to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings in a minute, his bill. Anyway, it’s a great bill that he has brought forward, a private member’s bill. It’s another bill we could have incorporated in this bill at the same time.

But back to contraband, in some areas they estimate that up to 50% of sales are due to contraband; the average is about 33%, which is quite a few. That’s pretty close to one in three cigarette purchases being purchased illegally in Ontario. By comparison, British Columbia is 17%, Manitoba is 15%, Saskatchewan is 11%. That Brad Wall does things well for his province. Quebec has seen great improvements since their police force was given the authority to investigate, seize and restrict cigarette manufacturing equipment in vehicles.

Many argue that the illegal industry that occurs within the province of Ontario is the worst in the western world. We bring forth legislation continually to raise taxes on the legal products, and that’s the deterrence. Unfortunately, the illegal trade, which does not pay any taxes, is increasing. So I think we can do better in the province. We can do better to deal with the illegal manufacturers, the illegal smugglers and the illegal dealers of contraband cigarettes.

As I mentioned earlier, the MPP for Prince Edward–Hastings and my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk, Toby Barrett, our ag critic, also brought forth legislation hoping to deal with contraband tobacco and accessing this illegal product.

If the government really wanted to get to the root of the problem, they could have done things for the last 13 years that they’ve been in power. You can’t hold on to the old argument of previous governments when you’ve been in power for 13 years. You had 13 years to fix everything that you argue and complain about. So if you haven’t fixed it, you obviously agree with what the previous governments have done.

In November of this past year, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings, Todd Smith, brought in Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. It was a great bill. I sat in on one of his meetings he had with some public health representatives, and it was a great meeting. The bill targets contraband tobacco and the sale focused on children. It amends the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to require the government to establish a public education program about the public health risks associated with the use of tobacco. It includes amendments to include the prohibition of the sale of tobacco in public and private schools. And the fines to those presenting illegal age identification and those convicted of selling tobacco in designated spaces are increased.

I know the health inspectors throughout the province are usually designated to ensure that businesses selling cigarettes are selling them to people who are of age. They do a good job, because we get calls at the office saying, “They tricked us. They didn’t look that age to ask if they’re 25 or under.” It’s not going to be 100% across the board, and some health inspectors will be overzealous, but the majority of them do their job.

When you have contraband cigarettes, you don’t have those inspectors out there ensuring that those people aren’t selling to minors. The way I figure it, if you’re selling tobacco illegally, you don’t really care who you’re selling it to. You just want the money. That’s why you’re doing it. Unfortunately, too many of our kids are having access to these illegal products, and this is the time to step forward. Any time is the time to step forward for this government, but every time we’re not always having discussions on the tobacco act.

That doesn’t happen too often, unless, of course, they devise a bill and forget to implement some of the ideas and have to come back with another one. I think when they come back with the other one they should be implementing ideas to decrease the illegal trade that’s occurring in our province.

Under Todd Smith’s bill, the Tobacco Tax Act is amended to permit the minister to share the proceeds of forfeited property with police forces that assist in investigations that lead to the forfeiture. I think municipalities would be happy with that; I think they’re stretched on their own budgets. I believe that anything to help out their budgets with regard to their emergency services and the police is a benefit.

The bill also says that the costs incurred by a police force or the crown to remove, store or dispose of a vehicle under

section 24 of the act are a debt due to the police force or the crown and may be recovered in court. Again, the cost of dealing with illegal contraband trade can be dealt with by the police force.

In his bill, enforcement powers are also expanded to include police officers, in addition to the existing persons authorized under the ministry, relating to unmarked tobacco products. Increases are made in the penalties that apply to offences relating to interjurisdictional importers, the manufacturing of tobacco products, the possession of unmarked cigarettes, and the purchase or receipt of marked or unmarked cigarettes for resale.

Finally, a person’s driver’s licence may be suspended if he or she uses a motor vehicle in the commission of certain offences. Suspension periods are also increased. I think that’s a good deterrent. Nobody wants to lose their independence with driving. We see it time and again with our seniors who hit 80 years old and have to do that test. They get fearful because driving is their mode of transportation, especially in rural Ontario. We don’t have the buses; we don’t have the taxi services that are in large urban areas. In rural Ontario, we have the car. We have bicycles, but usually when you hit 80—there are fewer and fewer riding bicycles at 80, and when winter hits, you need your car.

I’ve been trying to push. I haven’t been mean about it, but I’m gently pushing my local Ministry of Transportation in London. Right now, our seniors in Elgin county have to drive to London to do the written test and the eye test. I was able to locate a spot, free of charge to the ministry, in St. Thomas—which my seniors have been asking for around the whole area—where maybe once a month we could get the ministry to

schedule some test dates; not the driving—that’s another ball of wax—but the actual written test and the eye test. I’m getting, “No,” but I find that if you keep asking, perhaps down the road we’ll see some changes and some benefits back into the St. Thomas area. A lot of government services have been moved out for one reason or another, but we in St. Thomas and Elgin county do need access to government services. We have the need. We have a high seniors’ population.

Sorry I went off on that commercial break. Anyway, suspending driver licences is a good tactic.

It’s quite clear that contraband tobacco is causing an uproar in our schools. Too many children are getting access to illegal cigarettes. I hope the government will support the member from Prince Edward–Hastings’s bill. There was a time when they could incorporate it into this bill. Maybe at committee we could offer to incorporate this bill into Bill 178.

I mentioned earlier that Toby Barrett, Haldimand–Norfolk, has Bill 162 on the table as well, which is going to tackle the illegal trade. It’s important that all these bills that have been put forward are dealing with lung health and how chronic lung disease is debilitating. It’s something we could work on together to ensure that people, especially youth, have limited access to illegal products—have no access to illegal products. That would be the goal. That’s never going to happen; I get that. But for our government to ignore the situation isn’t going to make it better.

It’s going to ensure that people have access to illegal product. It’s going to hook people on smoking—our younger kids—and it’s going to deny access to tax revenue that this government needs and it’s going to increase lung disease.

They talk a great game at reducing smog. Elizabeth Witmer shut down the first coal plant. They followed up and shut down the rest, and smog alerts are gone. It’s great, but they’re doing nothing about contraband cigarettes, which are on the rise, which are causing more damage to the lungs of our youth and our adults, which are causing an increase in the health care system at the end of the day when people end up with lung cancer, which is on the rise, or other lung effects, like asthma. The use of medication is going to grow and the access to doctors is going to grow.

We spend $52 billion on the health care system each year—it grows. They’ve rationed the health care system, and we’ve had—this government has stepped forward and is starting rationing health care in the system. They cut doctors by $800 million. People’s access to health care is decreased. They froze funding at hospitals for four years. There are fewer beds and long waits. They can’t fix it within a year. They throw in the 1% but they pull out $100 million from the lottery fund going to hospitals. We’ve seen a lot of services cut and we’ve seen a lot of health care professionals lose their jobs.

You look at contraband cigarettes and you could do something about that to decrease the amount of people who, down the road, are going to need the health care system, which is 140,000 new people each year into the system. We have a growing demographic who are going to utilize the health care system. Why not do stuff or take steps outside of the health care system to cut down on future costs in the health care system by tackling illegal contraband cigarettes?

I think that’s a great step the government could use. The money they could save—fewer people getting diagnosed with lung diseases, but also the increased revenue in the taxes could be filtered into the health care system and ensure that proper funding is occurring throughout Ontario instead of the rationing we see day in and day out, leading to emergency room crisis. I’m sure, Speaker, in your office, you have people calling up.

I had a lady call up the office. Her daughter has dual diagnosis and was in crisis. They ended up putting her into a regular hospital bed, so she’s not getting the services she needs. There’s a bed waiting for her in London, but she’s got to wait two years to get to it—two years. Someday, we’ll start treating mental health like physical health and ensure quicker response times, that the beds are there when you need them. But at the same time, physical health is on the decline in the province.

I mentioned earlier that in January, February and March, if you wanted knee or hip replacement surgery, you couldn’t access that in Woodstock, Strathroy, London or St. Thomas. They ran out of money. Unfortunately, the seniors who paid taxes their whole lives for a health care system they wanted access to when they needed it—they need to access it now and they can’t. They’re sitting at home and suffering. Sitting in one place too long is not healthy. They decline in health and they withdraw from social activities because it’s just too painful to leave their house.

I think it’s prudent of this government, when you can capitalize on opportunities to save the health care system money by doing things outside of the health care system, such as tackling contraband cigarette sales and reducing the chances of lung disease—or, if you don’t want to go that far, because I know this government doesn’t want to deal with contraband cigarette sales, maybe incorporating other bills like the member from Cambridge’s, Etobicoke North, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings or Haldimand–Norfolk into a makeup bill, which this really is.

This bill is purely here because Bill 45 was rushed, there was no consultation and they missed this. We mentioned that at committee, that when you rush a bill, you miss things. I’m glad they’re fixing their mistake; however, I always look at how we can fix a mistake and utilize what’s in front of us to push legislation through that’s sitting in the committee room or waiting for second reading at the Legislature, because there are good ideas on both sides of the House. There’s a lot on this side of the House that the government can utilize. I mentioned Sarnia–Lambton’s Bob Bailey’s tax credit bill for agriculture. They did utilize that bill.

Anyway, those are my main comments on Bill 178. I think the medical marijuana issue is going to be probably key to discussion going forward. There’s a certain organization that thinks that they should be allowed to be wherever they want with it. I think that, with the consequences of the second-hand smoke from medical marijuana, we have to ensure that it’s removed a distance from the public.

I guess this bill, when it’s in place, will ensure that new items that come down the line somewhere in the future of I guess research and development, that people who would like to partake in smoking will be covered under this bill. I hope there’s a way to work the regulations out that kind of is one-size-fits-all in these bills. I would hate if, 15 years down the road, if other things have gone to market, businesses have to put up five different signs for the different items that are on there, because then you get the sign traffic and you ignore it all. Your mind just blocks it out.

It’s much like the billboards on the highways. I don’t see them anymore. I do see the speed limits. I do monitor the speed limits, in case anyone’s watching or listening.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Those guys in black and white cars remind me.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Yeah. Every so often you see them on the side of the road. I usually take the 403 home, so I cut through the Hamilton area, it’s very nice, and head up at Woodstock at the 401. The Woodstock area is chock full of the black-and-whites. Actually, the Brantford area, too, is quite full. They’re tough, which is good. That’s what we want: safety on the roads. They do a good job. I bet you there’s not an MPP in this building that hasn’t had a conversation with one of those guys at one time in their role as we go from place to place in our ridings.

Joe Preston was the MP in my area, and his plates said “Joe MP.” He couldn’t even hide. They loved pulling him over, especially between Dorchester into Aylmer. He’d try to get to those events as quick as possible and he got caught quite often. The fines that he paid, he probably bought a few police cars with regard to the fines that he paid. Anyway, Joe’s retired now and he’s doing well.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Are you going to get the “Jeff MPP”?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: No, I don’t need a marked car. My car licence plate says “Elgin St. Thomas” on it so if you’re out there, you know that’s my vehicle. I have a Ram, a Ram truck. It’s white. It’s nice.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I went on another tangent there.

Interjection: You’re a mad scientist or something.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: A mad scientist. Bill 178, that we’re debating here, is a bill that is amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to include products down the road to ensure that they fall into the right category, to ensure that the dangerous effects are limited, and the youth in our province are protected from having access to these products.

It will be interesting, when and if the federal government ever legalizes marijuana, if this Legislature will bring a bill forward to debate or whether they’ll just utilize Bill 178 and that’s that. I imagine that’s what the design of Bill 178 is, down the road. It will be a more intriguing discussion between medical marijuana and the legalization of marijuana and how that’s going to go forward.

My main focus of this talk was, number one, this bill—Bill 45—was rushed and, due to the rushing, you forget things. So this bill has come forward after the government originally said you could smoke medical marijuana wherever you wanted and then decided they should actually rethink that and do some consultation. Now we have this bill to deal with that.

My advice to the government is, when you do this—when you rush through consultation and you forget something in a bill and you have to have a makeup bill to make up for the mistake you made—look at the bills that are sitting waiting for debate at committee or in the Legislature and see what you can incorporate into it so that we can save some time here. We have so many bills backlogged in private member business that are beneficial to Ontarians. How can we utilize our time better and incorporate these bills into place so that we can debate and get them off the backlog but also get them debated?

I know this bill will be passed through the House before we break for the summer, so that’s one bill, but there are so many bills back here. The lung health bill, is that going to be passed by summer? Is the Prince Edward–Hastings bill going to be passed by summer? The radon bill, which I think was started before I even started being an MPP—we’re still waiting. You had a bill, Mr. Speaker—your actors bill—to protect youth actors: How long did that take? That was years. Three years.

Bills like this, that we have sitting on the floor today: We can utilize those bills that are waiting, that have been waiting and probably have no hope of completing before either the election is called or we clear the decks and start all over with a new throne speech.

It’s unfortunate—

Mr. Robert Bailey: Bill 76, the LNG bill.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Bill 76, the LNG bill: I think that’s at committee this week. Bob Bailey I think passes the most bills out of anybody on the opposition side. Well, maybe Mr. Speaker might, too.

I know I’ve kind of gone off topic a couple times—

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: However, I’m hoping that I’ve taught you a little bit about the people in my riding. I talked about Joe Preston, a retired MP. He served 10 years.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: What was his licence plate again?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: MP Joe. He’s changed it now. I think he’s got an X put in front of it: XMP Joe. Joe’s doing well. Joe still lives in the riding. He’s in Lambeth now, which is the north end of the riding; it’s in the London part of the riding. He’s operating a Wendy’s and Boston Pizza, so he’s doing all right in his retirement. He’s got a grandson, Elliot; Elliot’s about one year old, so he’s enjoying his grandson. He spent a couple of weeks in Florida—a good rest.

I hope many of you in this Legislature, when it’s time for you to retire, that you get some time with your family and relax. I know the amount of work that they go through, and hopefully down the road—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Two years, three months, for some of us, yes.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Some of them.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Some of them, sorry.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government. I thank them for supporting Ryan’s Law that we passed. May 5, I think, will be the first-year anniversary. I’m hoping to get a report soon from the Ministry of Education on how that rollout has done.

The Ontario Lung Association has done a wonderful job with the background information to educate the teachers, staff, the principals, the parents and the children about asthma.

The new pages—you guys can access your inhalers. If you’re an asthmatic, you can have your inhaler now. As long as your parents said yes, you can have it in your pocket. You don’t have to give it to the school nurse.

Interjection: You can have it in the chamber.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Yes, you can have it in your pocket right now, providing you have your parents’ permission. That was the key: to ensure that you’re safe.

The other part of my bill ensures that schools have the proper ventilation and such in the school system to ensure that the allergens are minimized. The first part of September every year is when asthma attacks skyrocket, usually the third week of September. That’s why we have asthma campaigns in September. Kids are getting back to school. They are in enclosed spaces now. The schools have probably been shut down for a number of months. There are kids running around and there are bacteria and viruses everywhere, and they get access to the inhalers.

I’m almost done, Mr. Speaker. I’m on my last page. So as we get done, basically, as we head towards the end of my hour—and I’ve got to tell you, it’s been tough to fit this bill in an hour, because it’s a makeup bill. It’s a bill that they put together because they missed it in Bill 45. They missed it because they rushed. When you rush, without consultation, you make unintended consequences.

I’m hoping with this budget that’s on the floor—because the finance committee is still writing the report. The budget came out really early. There were really no consultations on it. It was something they had printed a while ago—maybe some tweaks after the bulk of it was printed. I hope there are no unintended consequences, although a $300-billion debt is going to hurt. It’s going to hurt down the road. A billion dollars a month is going to interest payments—$1 billion. Think what you could do with $1 billion—$1 billion to go to the health care system. I’ve brought up mental health numerous times.

A billion dollars could help fund the fight against contraband cigarettes, which should be included in Bill 178. It’s unfortunate that that was missed.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, thank you for listening. I hope I’ve given you a little history of where we’ve come from—from scraping out the ashtray in my pharmacy at eight years old, every Sunday listening to the Detroit Tigers, who, by the way, in 1984, had the best baseball team, I think, in history, with Jack Morris, Chet Lemon and Alan Trammell. Those were the days.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Al Kaline.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Who’s that?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Al Kaline. Lou Whitaker.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Lou Whitaker.

Interjection: Cecil Fielder.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: He was later. Cecil Fielder was later. It was great.

We’ve gone from that to smoking in airplanes to, now, people can actually have a breath of fresh air when they’re at their restaurant, when they’re out having a beer, when they’re flying in their airplane. And my daughter does not have to go to the pharmacy and clean out ashtrays. She can sweep, she can fill up the chocolate bars, but she does not have to clean out ashtrays at the pharmacy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the comments. Any questions you have, throw them at me, and we’ll see what comes forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you to the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, because you’re right: An hour on this bill is a tough thing to do, and you pulled it off. It was shaky at the last few minutes, but you pulled it off.

That just goes to show you the arrogance, sometimes, of this government, who refuse to listen to the people of this province when putting bills together, and just chose not to. They didn’t do the consultations, so they missed this very important piece that should have been part of Bill 45. The member talked about that in his very long hour on this very minimal bill. It’s an important piece of the puzzle that should have been part of Bill 45.

I’m grateful to see that our children will not have to be put in the way of other people’s need for smoking medical marijuana, and that that’s something that people will not be able to do in a public place. The same as you would not be able to smoke a cigarette in a public place, you will have to take that outside. I know, personally, that I appreciate it, being a non-smoker myself, and a quitter.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: For how long now?

Miss Monique Taylor: A quitter—two and a half years.

The vaping is a big part of people quitting cigarettes, and so that is an important piece. I think that it needs to be outside. We need to not make it the norm for children in our province, because everywhere we look now, there’s someone with a vaper. Personally, I have no idea what they have in it. That’s up to them, and that’s their business. But I don’t think it needs to be the norm for our children or for people to have to just have it in their face.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions or comments?

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. Many, many years ago, my mother used to smoke, before I was born, and my grandfather used to smoke as well. I remember her talking to me, even when I was a kid, about how pleased she was, how proud she was that my grandfather quit, and how pleased she was that she quit. She did it, first and foremost, to protect my health and my sister’s health when we were born, but also she protected her own health. My grandfather lived for decades after he quit smoking, and my mother is still with us and in fantastic health. So the importance of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, I can’t underline that enough.

This bill is something I’m very proud of, because it’s common sense, right? It’s just common sense. I was on a panel on CFRB radio the other morning, with Moore in the Morning, the morning show—and a big thanks to John Moore and Becky Coles, who had me on the show—and we were talking about this particular proposal. A lot of the people on the panel, and even later in the day on the radio, were just saying that this is common sense. That’s really what sticks out in my mind and why I think it’s important that we get this bill passed as soon as possible.

It’s common sense because what it does is say that no matter what you’re smoking, the restrictions that are under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act should apply. Whether you’re smoking a cigarette or whether it’s medical marijuana, if you’re in an enclosed space, if you’re in a car with a child under 16 years of age, if you’re in a restaurant or if you’re on a patio, it doesn’t matter what you’re smoking, but those things should not be happening in those places, where they could compromise a person’s health, or where they could compromise a person’s comfort and they could compromise a person’s ability to enjoy whatever it is that they’re doing and to go through their daily life.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and I’m proud to support the act. By doing it, what we’re doing is we’re helping people live healthier, we’re helping people live longer, and we’re ultimately enhancing the quality of life of our constituents.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions or comments?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I, too, have an airplane story. This was not all that long ago. I was flying to Dubai, through Kuwait. I was sitting on the aircraft, and all of a sudden I saw this smoke billowing forward from the back. This is not all that long ago. I honestly thought there was a fire in the plane. When was the last time you were ever on an airplane in modern days and you saw smoke? So I can tell you, I share your concern about your flight.

But the North Bay district, North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit is very concerned about the sale of illegal cigarettes and their impact on efforts to protect our children from the dangers of smoking. On January 27 of this year, our health board passed a resolution in support of Bill 139, the Smoke-Free Schools Act, put forward by my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings, Mr. Todd Smith.

The resolution notes that Bill 139 includes a prohibition on the sale of any tobacco products in schools, increased fines for offenders caught selling illegal tobacco and increased suspension periods of driver’s licences of those convicted of using a vehicle to transport illegal tobacco. It also notes that Bill 139 has been endorsed by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, so I want to commend our member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

The health board in our area also points out that the number of daily and occasional smokers in the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit area is 7% higher than the provincial average, which underscores my concern in my riding. Bill 139 deserves due consideration in this Legislature, and I hope that that aids in the discussion that we’re having today on Bill 178, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: This bill—obviously we needed to have it. There was a public outcry about why this government came out with a regulation that you could smoke prescribed products, kind of open-ended. So we heard back from the public, and the government had to rethink and come up with a plan to address the problem.

This is not the first example that we have, unfortunately, where this government hasn’t had a thoughtful process in legislation. If you think about Hydro One and the sale of Hydro One, they’re going forward with that even though 80% of the public has said, “Stop the sale of Hydro.” Some 195 municipalities have given a resolution to stop of sale of Hydro, but they’re not listening in that regard.

The other one, the legislation with regards to seniors’ Ontario drug benefits: They proposed a 70% increase on the annual deductible for seniors who make $19,500. We are now going out in our communities and letting people know about this particular legislation in the budget, because nobody saw it coming. There were no consultations. There was no warning. That’s another problematic issue, so we bring it up. It’s lucky that we caught that, and we’re letting this government know that it’s a wrong-headed idea. The Premier agreed to a 30-day consultation. These things should be done before a bill comes to this House.

Now we’re debating this bill, which is needed, addressing a need that the public has asked for. People don’t want vaping anywhere and everywhere. It talks about vaping in a car, prescribed products in your car and prescribed products in employment. There is a

part in here, though, that’s an exemption for prescribed products in scientific research and testing facilities. That makes sense; we have to know what kind of effects these products are having on people’s health.

It’s symptomatic of putting legislation through in this House, time-allocating things and rushing through without getting fulsome debate on legislation. I’m glad the government finally listened in this case and we’re talking about it today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London: two minutes.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain, who I’m looking forward to listening to in the next couple of minutes, and the members from Etobicoke Centre, Nipissing and, of course, London–Fanshawe—my neighbour back home.

Lots of points were raised. The member from Etobicoke Centre said this is common sense. Yes, it is common sense, and it was common sense to have been put in Bill 45. They rushed it. They made a mistake. They made a mistake with medical marijuana. They’re making up for it—I get it—but at the same time, why not incorporate one of the other bills that are sitting here that’s going to deal with lung health and/or smoking, get that bill off the table and start dealing with other problems in this province?

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings’s bill to do with contraband cigarettes, especially those sold to our youth, is an excellent bill to put forward. On the other side of the House, the member from Cambridge: The Lung Health Act would be great to add in here. Unfortunately, they rushed to rush the bill. They came forward to fix it, and they’re rushing again and aren’t taking the time and opportunity to have a real common sense bill in the Legislature here to deal with more than just one fixer-up item.

They embarrassed themselves; they made a mistake. They’re paying for it right now, because the opposition is going to hit them on this, as we should. We should point out that the incompetence in some of these ministries is unfortunate, and the people who pay for it are Ontarians. And because we’re not dealing with contraband cigarettes in this province, our health care costs are going to increase, our youth are put at risk and there’s quite a bit of tax revenue from the legal sale of cigarettes that we’re missing out on. We know this government needs that money, because why else would you sell Hydro One if you weren’t desperate for cash? There’s no other reason for that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to be able to have a few moments to have my voice on record regarding Bill 178. It’s a small bill, an important piece of the legislation that was missed, unfortunately, in Bill 45, so I’m happy to have a few minutes. I have to say that I’m pleased I don’t have the same hour that the member before me did, because it’s a pretty thin bill. But like I said, it’s important.

Currently, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act applies to tobacco products only, so Bill 178 will extend the application of the act to include prescribed products and substances, so prescribed in cabinet by regulation. This is a legislative framework that will allow medical marijuana use to be governed by the same no-smoking law that currently applies to tobacco. That’s an important piece, Speaker.

As we know, as we’re moving into a future where we know that medical marijuana is sometimes a better choice than narcotics, especially very highly addictive narcotics, we need to have things in place to ensure that we have a safe public, that we have responsibilities, that we have laws around how medical marijuana could be used. Personally, I would prefer to see people with medical marijuana than to be using very highly addictive drugs that we’ve seen many of our citizens in this province fall fate to.

It’s through no fault of their own that they’ve become addicted to these narcotics that are prescribed to them by their doctor, but there is also no real plan of getting them off those drugs because they become highly addicted and then are turning to methadone programs.

That is an unfortunate reality that we’re faced with here in the province of Ontario. We see many, many folks who would not typically fall into the drug addiction realm of their lives and never would be expected to be there, but because they’ve been prescribed very heavy, hard narcotics, they are now finding themselves faced with addictions and with family members, quite frankly, who don’t know how to deal with it. This, I think, will help along the framework of medical marijuana being used for pain control, and I’m fully in favour of that.

I’m happy to see that we have legislation that will now create a better environment and put rules in place so people will know the limits, because nobody wants to be sitting in a restaurant these days with somebody smoking beside them, regardless of what it is, whether it’s for medical purposes or not. We know that not so many years ago, really, people were smoking in restaurants and bars on a regular basis. They were smoking here. I wonder where the ashtrays attached to our desks, because you can be sure that they were smoking cigarettes sitting in this very seat, in this very Legislature.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Big, fat cigars.

Miss Monique Taylor: Yes, big, fat cigars. Boy, am I ever glad that I missed those days, Speaker, because that’s the reality, and we have come so far. I’m quite sure that when my mother held me when I was first born, there was an ashtray on the side of her table. Let’s think back to this, because that’s the reality of where we have come from.

Now we have vaping instead of cigarettes, which, for many, has become a better solution. It has become something that people can count on now or try to lean on to try to quit smoking. Vapers are becoming the new norm. We need to make sure that we have rules in place, whether it’s for vaping for nicotine or vaping to not have the nicotine but giving you the sensation and the pleasure of smoking to help you quit smoking or whether it’s vaping medical marijuana—we need to make sure that we are responsible for society and that we put plans in place to make sure that it’s done responsibly.

It’s really unfortunate that the government missed the boat on this in Bill 45, because I know there would have been great legislation that we could have been talking about today instead of dealing with this very small bill, but a very important piece. Because it was missed in Bill 45, it now is before us, unfortunately wasting very precious time that we have here at the Legislature to put forward good bills, good ideas that really make a difference for the people of this province.

There are so many things that I wish that we could move forward on in this House when it comes to changes to the Child and Family Services Act, when it comes to our children’s mental health and when it comes to our aboriginal folks in the north, when we know that they’re in situations and in an absolute—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Crisis.

Miss Monique Taylor: “Crisis” doesn’t even seem like it’s enough. To have children who are covered in sores from head to toe is heartbreaking. It’s shameful. It’s beyond my words, it’s beyond my thoughts, of how things have gotten so bad there and how not just a provincial government but a federal government has allowed the state of our Third World Canada to happen. It’s a crisis, Speaker.

We’re not talking about that here today. We’re talking about a piece of legislation that is so very small because it is a missed opportunity in a past bill, Bill 45, where this should have been in place then, and it’s not. So today we are here, making up for the government’s mistake once again, for their failure to do consultation, for their failure to make sure that they get it right for the people of this province the first time.

Medical marijuana is something that we know is coming to our future. We need to make sure that we have rules and regulations around it to make sure that we have public safety, to make sure that all people in the province of Ontario have the right to a smoke-free Ontario. I just wish that this would have been done before. I’m hoping that there are some extra dollars in this for enforcement to make sure that we’re not just creating another law but we’re actually going to follow through on it.

Speaker, maybe I’ll just let folks know that concerned citizens are able to submit their comments on this government legislation and regulatory proposals regarding medical marijuana and e-cigarettes until April 24. You can contact the Ontario Legislature, put your name on the list, put your proposals in and have your comments and your voice heard here in the Legislature by the government, by the folks who will be putting further rules together. Please have your say. This is your opportunity. It’s not very often that the government asks—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Hamilton Mountain, thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s 10:15. This House stands recessed till 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Toby Barrett: We all welcome Don McCabe, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and his directors here today.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: On that note, I want to introduce Mark Kunkel from Powassan, here with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a lot of guests visiting Queen’s Park today from the University Women’s Club North York. I’m going to read their names: Diane Johns, Joan Deleuze, Colette Simpson, Margaret McGovern—she worked with me when I was in public health—Dian Laycock, Barb Cook, Helen-Sue Gorman, Joanne Garside, Barbara Betts, Marion Goltz, Susan Goldenberg, Joanne Reilly, Barb Powell, Ann Lutterman, Carolyn Horton, Mary Ellen Hayes, Marie Blacklock, June Brown and June Gurvich. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Today I’m very pleased to welcome to the chamber Pat Jilesen, provincial director at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He comes from the great riding of Huron–Bruce. Welcome, Patrick.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Today I’m delighted to introduce good friends of mine from the Ontario Waterpower Association, which is located in the wonderful riding of Peterborough: Paul Norris, Bob Allen, Frank Perri, Stephen Somerville, Karen McGhee, Grant Hipgrave, Bill Touzel, Heather Ferguson, Michael Morgenroth, John Wynsma, Vince Kulchycki, Melanie Boyd and Nick Kaluzny. We welcome them here today. They’re having their reception later today.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Keith Currie, who is no stranger to this place and a very important member of the board of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Today is Lakehead University lobby day here at Queen’s Park, and we have a great contingent here from the university: Dr. Brian Stevenson, president and vice-chancellor; Dr. Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, vice-provost, aboriginal initiatives; Dr. Peggy Smith, member of the Ogimaawin council; Richard Longtin, government relations director; and Dr. Andrew Dean, vice-president of research and innovation. We invite them all to the reception this afternoon in room 228. Welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m so excited to introduce my cousin Ariel Albin. She’s a grade 10 student at CHAT, which is the Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto. She’s job shadowing with me today. Welcome, Ariel.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to introduce Frank Perri from Horizon Utilities, for St. Catharines Hydro, here in the members’ gallery, to my right.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome some students from the Ryerson Politics and Governance Students’ Association: Jaskaran Malhi, Philip Menecola and Katiana Moussa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m so proud that we have page captain Vanessa Russell from my riding of Etobicoke Centre here. Her parents are here. Her mother, Jenn Russell, and her father, Troy Russell, are here in the public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome Troy Cockriell and Mitchell Shnier, who are here to go to lunch with their MPP. They’re in the members’ west gallery. Welcome.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, in the members’ west gallery today, we forgot to introduce my good friend Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I too would like to welcome folks here from the Ontario Waterpower Association today. I don’t have the full list of the names, but it’s great to have them here. They’ve got a reception tonight. I remind the people that my riding has over 1,100 megawatts of clean waterpower at its disposal.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m going to add my welcome as well to the Ontario Waterpower Association and to Paul Norris and his gang. We had a great meeting this morning and, of course, they’re having their day here. The reception is here this evening.

As well—they have just entered into the west gallery—President Brian Stevenson, from Lakehead University; Dr. Andrew Dean, the vice-president of research and innovation; Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, vice-provost, aboriginal initiatives; and Richard Longtin, government relations director. Lakehead University is having their lobby day here and tonight. We hope to see all the members out there as well.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’d like to welcome some of my constituents visiting Queen’s Park today. They’re the Ryerson University Politics and Governance Students’ Association, and I’d like to welcome them. They’re up there somewhere.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery is someone I would like to introduce. If you think I can be the grizzly bear, don’t mess with Mama Bear. That’s my wife, Rosemarie.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Behave yourself today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to get a copy of Hansard and underline that, from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. The chips are all high now. Don’t worry about it.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I rise to correct my record from question period on Monday. During a question on aboriginal health issues, I referred to the Premier’s previous role as critic for aboriginal affairs as opposed to Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members have the right to correct their record. It was done well. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Jim Hillyer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to rise and observe a moment of silence to mark the tragic and sudden death of Mr. Jim Hillyer, the member of Parliament for Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, the deputy leader, is asking for unanimous consent to rise for a moment of silence in tribute to the fallen member. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all members and everyone, please, to stand and pay tribute.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Every small tribute of respect is appreciated by the members in this House.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I rise today and, on behalf of all colleagues, say our profound condolences to the political community with the passing of Mr. Hillyer and, yesterday, of Mr. Ford.

My question is for the Premier. On October 28, the Premier said, “The agreements were in line with our net-zero bargaining framework” when she was referring to the secret union payouts with the teachers. On November 25, the Premier said three more times that agreements were made with a net-zero framework—four stretch goals in a very small amount of time.

Now, today we find out from the CP’s Allison Jones that the deals “actually come with an additional $300-million cost.” But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, because we know the Auditor General has yet to return her report into her investigation of these secret payouts. I ask the Premier: How does net zero equal $300 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education is going to want to comment on this.

What we’re talking about is nine agreements that have been ratified, that are consistent with our net-zero bargaining framework. Most importantly, students remain in school. There were no cuts to the classrooms. There were modest wage increases that were offset by finding other savings throughout the collective agreement.

Let me just say on the benefits: We’re taking more than 1,000 different benefit plans for teachers and education workers and moving them to a handful of provincial trusts. I think that it would be interesting to the member opposite to know that for years, from the time I was a school trustee, from the time that the Minister of Education was a school trustee, there has been a conversation in the education sector about how to rationalize the benefits packages across the province. That will save money, and that’s why making that bid was so important.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is at least $300 million taken out of the education budget. That is not a rounding error. I know the Premier is not an accountant, but that’s $300 million more than she told this House. This is also, of course, the same Premier who told us the cancelled gas plants were only $40 million before we found out the true cost was $1.2 billion. She is cutting demonstration schools across this province—special-ed cuts everywhere. Parents are fundraising for basic necessities in our classrooms.

I ask the Premier: What does $300 million in education funding mean to her? Because it certainly doesn’t mean pizzas and popcorn to me.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry; I didn’t recognize you, Premier.

Carry on, please.

Interjection: I barely recognize her, too.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that the changes in the benefits are changes that have been talked about in the sector for many years, because when the school boards were amalgamated, when the funding model changed in this province at the hands of the previous government, it only made sense to talk about how there could be savings in those benefits plans.

Finally, we’ve gotten to the point where we can do that, where those benefit plans can be amalgamated. There can be changes that will save money to the system. It will actually lower the cost of benefit plans through the power of bulk negotiation. It only makes sense. I actually would have thought that this is the kind of efficiency and savings that that party would support.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier of Ontario just had the audacity to look at this assembly and say that she found $300 million in efficiencies when it cost more than net zero; it cost $300 million. You can’t trust this government anymore when they tell us it’s going to cost one thing—

Interjections.

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

The chippiness is pretty high and I can read it, so I’m going to start looking at individuals.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The power worker deals had a net-zero deal until we found out that it was $87 million more to buy Hydro One shares. The teachers’ union deal was supposed to be net zero until we found out it’s at least $300 million more. You have one job and that is to find net zeros in this government in order to balance the deficit, which you have no objective of doing.

I would like to understand, from the Premier of Ontario—you have assigned somebody in the Treasury Board to find net-zero deals; you failed at every turn. What is the Deputy Premier’s job anyway if she can’t find deals here?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted to answer this question.

There were a thousand different benefit plans. Some of those benefit plans might have had 15 or 20 people in them. They were extraordinarily expensive. We have been talking about this problem in education since I was the president of the public school boards, but we had no legal authority to do anything about it to bring everybody together. For the first time in this round of bargaining, because we had the authority to negotiate centrally, we actually have the ability to bring 1,000 inefficient benefit plans into five or six pools. But when you set things up like that, there’s an upfront investment—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated. It’s not helpful to hear people using anything other than titles or ridings, and I’m going to put my foot down on that.

New question.

Special-needs students

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Education this morning. Over the last six weeks or so, Speaker, I’ve received all kind of letters, e-mails, phone calls and visits of support for Sagonaska Demonstration School in Belleville and the other demonstration schools in Ontario. I’ve heard countless success stories from kids who didn’t think they had a future before going to these schools, and now they’re breaking down barriers and reaching their potential at post-secondary institutions across Ontario.

A few weeks ago I met Chris, who is a grade 8 student reading at a grade 1 level. After just a few months in the program, he was back at his proper grade level when it came to reading. He was looking forward to going back to his home school and being a successful student at his grade level.

In spite of success stories like that, the minister won’t commit to Sagonaska serving students next year. I understand the minister’s going to be in Belleville this evening at Sagonaska. Will she finally commit to the school’s future, or will she give parents and staff the same non-answer she’s been given the House for weeks?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I’ve said many times, there is a consultation ongoing, and we have not made any decisions. Apparently, the members opposite know what the decision is, which is really quite mystical, because I don’t know.

I’m consulting because we want to find out how we can ensure that thousands of children in Ontario who are reading below grade level can benefit from the sorts of programs that go on in the demonstration schools. We’re not arguing about whether the demonstration school programs are successful; what we’re bemoaning is the fact that there are thousands of children in Ontario who can’t read. How do we solve the fact that thousands can’t read?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, back to the minister: They’ve capped enrolment. They’re not even accepting enrolment for next year. They’re sending the teachers, who are seconded to these schools, back to their home schools.

The minister has clearly mastered the five Ds of question period: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. That’s what she’s doing on a continual basis here at Queen’s Park. I’ve got another one for her: demand. The parents of Ontario’s most vulnerable students are demanding an answer. They’re going to be standing in front of the minister this evening demanding an answer to the future for their kids, a future that can best be provided by keeping Sagonaska school open. That’s a future that this government and this minister are putting in doubt.

I’ve got another D for her: This whole process has been a disgrace.

Interjection: Disaster.

Mr. Todd Smith: It has been a disaster. It has been despicable, because the minister will not give an answer as to why enrolment has been cancelled. Will she stand up before these parents, students and staff tonight and tell them there will be demonstration schools—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Just a gentle reminder that when I stand, you sit.

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I agree that there are a lot of people who are demanding answers, but some of the people who are demanding answers are the parents of children who don’t have an opportunity to move away from home, to attend a residential school and to get remedial reading programs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The question was asked by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, and I’m sure you’re going to listen.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Those parents are also demanding an answer. We know that there are a lot of children who have very severe learning disabilities. It’s important to understand that this isn’t all children with learning disabilities. These are children with very severe learning disabilities, of average intelligence or above, who are many, many grade levels behind in terms of their ability to read. We need to figure out how to deliver programs that work to all those children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question: the leader of the third party.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, sorry. Final supplementary: the member from Chatham-Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister: Recently I met with a courageous constituent from my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex named Katie. She was diagnosed with a severe learning disability, and her reading level had not progressed beyond grade 3. After six months at the Amethyst Demonstration School in London, she is reading slightly above a grade 7 level. The school has given Katie the confidence to believe in herself, but she’s worried that the government is considering closing her school. Katie said, “If I was not given the opportunity to attend a demonstration school, I would have struggled through school and felt like a failure.”

Please don’t devastate these families, Minister.

To the minister: Can the minister assure Katie and her parents that her demonstration school in London will be open in September?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex for losing track.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think what we need to do is talk to all the Katies in the province who are having challenges reading and tell all the Katies in the province—right now, there’s a maximum of 40 children at each of the four demonstration schools.

Interjection: It’s capped.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member opposite says that that’s capped, but in fact there are less than 40 children at each of the demonstration schools because that was how many qualified for the very specific criteria. So we have less than 160 children in the entire province who are getting the benefit of these very strong remedial reading programs. We need to make sure that we look after all the Katies in the province who need similar remedial programs.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier.

Seniors’ organizations from across Ontario have written to the Premier; I’m sure she has received the letter. They said, “We are asking you to cancel the fee increases for seniors and uphold the principle of universality for our health care system.”

Will the Premier listen to the nearly 60 organizations who have written to her and cancel her plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for seniors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party is very aware that there is a regulation that has been posted and that there is a consultation going on right now. Those organizations will be, obviously, very interested in giving us feedback, and we will be listening very carefully to them.

The leader of the third party also knows that our policy that was in our budget means that 173,000 more seniors will pay no deductible. Seniors who paid a deductible previously will pay no deductible. That was the intention of the plan.

We’ve said that on the second part of the plan, we were going to be listening to people as the regulation was posted, and if we didn’t get that part right, then we would adjust it. I think the leader of the third party knows that. We’ve said that repeatedly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Earlier this month, I asked the Premier whether she believed in universal health care. That means that if you need care, you can get it, no matter who you are and no matter what your income is. She said yes. But what she is doing and what she just spoke about a moment ago is moving in exactly the opposite direction of universality.

Ontario seniors put it pretty bluntly in the letter that they sent the Premier. They said that she is abandoning this principle and “dismantling universality.”

Will this Premier do the right thing and cancel her plan to nearly double prescription costs for seniors?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There is no stronger defender of universal health care in this province than our Premier, Mr. Speaker, and she will remain that way.

When it comes to seniors, evidence of that is that our seniors in this province have by far the lowest out-of-pocket expenses for drugs. It averages $277 per annum for our seniors in this province. Let’s go to Manitoba, where the average out-of-pocket cost is $982 per year; or Saskatchewan, $884 per year; or in British Columbia, $615; or in Alberta, where it’s $613, more than twice what it is in this province.

We have the lowest out-of-pocket cost to our seniors because we are so generous to our seniors when it comes to providing the drugs that they need, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this health minister can stand in his place and spout rhetoric, but actions speak louder than words.

I know for a fact that seniors across Ontario are worried about the Premier’s plan to nearly double their drug costs. Today, nearly 60 organizations wrote to the Premier to tell her to cancel this plan.

Our Queen’s Park offices and our constituency offices have been getting letters and emails and phone calls from worried seniors. I’ll bet that every Liberal backbencher is getting the same calls and emails and letters as we are on this side of the House, and they know what that means for their jobs if they ignore those seniors.

The Premier has acknowledged that she has made a mistake. Will she do the right thing for seniors and cancel her plan to increase their prescription drug costs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, it’s not surprising that the NDP doesn’t support our efforts to move 173,000 more seniors so they pay no annual deductible because here’s their record when they were in power: They removed coverage for over 230 drugs from the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, over 10% of all drugs on the formulary at that time. All that the health minister at that time would say is that these drugs would be available to low-income seniors for reasonable prices at pharmacies.

They closed 24% of acute hospital beds. They closed 13% of mental health beds across this province.

In their last budget, in 1995, they reduced hospital funding by 1%, which was the second year in a row of reducing total health care funding.

We don’t need to take lessons from the NDP. Their government was a disaster when it came to health care.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. But I have to say that what we don’t support on this side of the House in the NDP benches is the abandonment of the universal health care system in this province by that government.

The Premier has received a letter that is signed by the Alliance of Seniors—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, there’s going to be. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is now on notice. Anyone else want to comment?

Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has received a letter that has been signed by the Alliance of Seniors, local health coalitions, CARP chapters, Jewish, Chinese and Tamil seniors’ associations, unions and retiree associations.

Will this Premier tell these groups how many seniors will see their drug costs nearly double?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say that I really do understand that it serves the leader of the third party’s political purposes to set a fire where there isn’t one, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that our budget removes all costs for drugs from 173,000 students. There was a second part to that—

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Seniors.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Seniors, sorry; I’m talking about seniors. It removes the cost of drugs from 173,000 more seniors.

We’ve said that in terms of the deductible, we would consult and we would look at that. If we got the threshold wrong, we would change it. That’s the process we’re undergoing right now.

The leader of the third party knows that. She knows that seniors have an opportunity to give us feedback, and we’ve said we will change it, Mr. Speaker, if we got it wrong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just myself, as the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, that is concerned about this. It’s 60 seniors’ organizations that are setting a fire, and that’s what the Premier needs to pay attention to. The Premier just isn’t listening to Ontarians, once again. First it was the decision to sell Hydro One, even though everybody knows that’s a bad idea, and now it’s her plan for seniors’ drugs.

Unless the Premier cancels her plan, potentially millions of seniors in Ontario are going to see their drug costs shoot through the roof. Seniors’ groups are telling her to cancel this plan because it will undermine the fundamental principles that our health care system has been built on in this province and in this country.

Can the Premier tell Ontarians what happened to the basic idea that government should be listening to people and governing for all Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Listening to people is exactly what we did, which is why 173,000 more seniors will not pay any deductible. That is exactly what we did.

Now, as I have said, there is a regulation in place. There is comment on the regulation that we are receiving right now. We have said that if we didn’t get that second part of the initiative right, we will change the threshold. But we will not do that because the NDP is ranting at us in an irrational way, when we’ve already said that we’re going to consult on this. We’re going to look at it and if we got it wrong, we’ll change it.

The leader of the third party, for her own political reasons, can ramp up the rhetoric. She can pretend that somehow this is a cause that she has championed. Mr. Speaker, 173,000 seniors in this province will pay no more deductible. We will make a change if that’s necessary. We will listen to the people of the province. We will listen to the seniors who are affected. We will not follow the lead of the NDP.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I know that this Premier doesn’t like the fact that we have a democratic process here and the opposition has a role, but that’s actually the truth and she’s going to have to get used to it.

The Premier admitted that this plan was a mistake. She’s being revisionist now by saying that she actually listened to people—

Interjections.

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

Question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She’s being revisionist now in saying that she actually listened to people, when everybody knows she threw this into her budget without listening to anybody because they had it written before they even started their budget consultations. Nobody knew that they were going to be increasing drug costs for seniors.

She admitted that the plan was a mistake. She’s given herself until next Wednesday to start making changes. She said that if people spoke up, she’d make a change. Well, people are speaking up. Today’s groups representing hundreds of thousands of seniors are telling the Premier that the Liberal plan is wrong.

Will she listen to Ontario seniors, cancel her plan to nearly double drug costs and uphold the core value that health care should be universal here in Ontario?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I can understand why the NDP won’t talk about and doesn’t appear to support 170,000 more seniors who will go from paying a deductible of $100 per year to zero. They will actually be added to about 300,000 people who are currently in that position.

Mr. Paul Miller: You forgot about the other two million—$19,000 is affluent? You’ve got to be kidding

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time.

Mr. Paul Miller: Disgraceful.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, when those 173,000 are added to the existing lowest-income seniors, almost half a million seniors out of the two million that are in this province will pay no annual deductible. That’s nearly 25%.

But I understand why they don’t support this. They didn’t support us on the PSW wage increase—

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

New question.

Goodwill Industries

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Goodwill Toronto’s bankruptcy filing shows that its 430 employees are owed $4.2 million in severance and vacation pay. Mr. Speaker, they are unlikely to see a dime from the settlement.

Meanwhile, the outgoing CEO received all of her $240,000 salary right up to the time she abandoned ship. By that time, the 11 board members were already gone. The Employment Standards Act is clear: The directors are personally liable for employees’ vacation pay. They cannot run from this.

Will the minister guarantee that Goodwill’s employees will get the money they are owed from the runaway board of directors?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the honourable member for that question.

Certainly it concerns us all here in the province of Ontario when we see an incident like that happen. At the Ministry of Labour we have an Employment Standards Act that’s administered by the group. We go in in situations like this and we ensure the people who have worked hard for that money are paid. What we have is an excellent track record of collecting funds. Obviously from time to time there are those people we can’t collect from. I can tell you that work is ongoing with this file. We expect it to come to a successful conclusion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back to the Minister of Labour: Goodwill’s board allowed the charity to run into the ground. Their decision to resign and abandon Toronto’s most vulnerable is nothing short of cowardly. Chief among the dodgers is David Wai, director of design and policy at the ORPP Implementation Secretariat. Perhaps the minister responsible for the ORPP met Mr. Wai through the outgoing Goodwill CEO, her former colleague at Toronto Community Housing.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister throw the book at Goodwill’s board members for unpaid wages, or will there be a special deal for friends of Liberal cabinet ministers?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, that question is beneath—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’m going to suggest to the member that he’s desperately close to making an accusation that is not parliamentary. I’m going to let it go with the warning that those kinds of accusations are not acceptable in the House in terms of members of this place.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. I think most people in this House agree with you entirely in that ruling.

The federal government has got exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcies and insolvencies and you know that. We have made our government’s position known on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark knows better and he has got to stop doing that. I’m not going to tolerate that anymore because I’ve been hearing some nicknames coming from him and it’s not acceptable in this place.

Interjection: Nicknames?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes.

Carry on.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The ministry provided funding to Goodwill and that funding was provided on a monthly basis. As soon as the ministry became aware of the program closures, all payments were stopped. We’ve connected a number of these individuals with new employment supports. I think the ministry and this government have done everything it could—

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

New question.

Steel industry

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier this morning.

Premier, the member from Sault Ste. Marie continues to publicly raise a thousand reasons why the province can’t do anything but watch the steel industry in his community and its good-paying jobs dry up and blow away. But the mayor and council have asked this Premier and this government to act now, to avoid Essar Steel Algoma’s operations from going down the exact same road as happened in Hamilton with US Steel’s, or Stelco’s, operation.

The Premier met with Chinese officials. She has met with the owners of Essar Steel overseas. Will the Premier meet with the mayor of a city in her province who is looking for help for thousands of members in his community?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question, and I just want to say that there is nobody who is working harder to make sure that the steel industry in Ontario is healthy than the member from Sault Ste. Marie—nobody. Nobody. And I know that the people of Sault Ste. Marie know that. I know that the steel industry in Ontario knows that. The member for Sault Ste. Marie is a fierce advocate for the steel industry, Mr. Speaker, and he will continue to look for solutions.

As a government, we have a responsibility to look at the steel industry in Ontario in the context of the steel industry nationally and internationally. That’s exactly the point the member for Sault Ste. Marie has made. I will meet with anyone who is interested, who has some solutions as to how we might resolve this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Premier, nobody is listening to the question. With 8,000 jobs tied to the mills and another 8,000 pensioners, the failure of the steel mills for the people of Sault Ste. Marie is not an option. The mayor has asked the province to play a leading role in the restructuring process of Essar Steel.

Speaker, here’s the question again: Does the Premier agree with her minister’s comments? Is she prepared to meet local municipal leaders, the unions, pensioners, creditors and potential buyers to tell them that this province values steel manufacturing and sees a future for it in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me say that this is a national issue, and it’s an international issue. I think it’s page 128 of the federal budget. Page 128 actually commits to take actions that we have been calling on the federal government to take: a recognition that the steel industry is critical to this country. It’s critical to the supply chain of so many of the industries in Ontario. We recognize that, working in partnership with the federal government, there may be a solution to this.

But Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not going to work is talking down the steel industry in Ontario. Make no mistake: We are going to do everything in our power to retain the steel industry in Ontario and support it in conjunction with the federal government.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Water quality

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

Yesterday, March 22, marked annual international World Water Day. Since 1993, it is held annually as a means of focusing attention on the importance of fresh water and advocating for the sustainable management of fresh water resources. It’s been estimated that 650 million people, or 10% of the world’s population, do not have access to safe water, putting them at risk of infectious diseases and premature deaths.

We are extremely fortunate in Ontario and Canada to have access to clean water. That’s why on World Water Day we all have a role to play in protecting and restoring our waterways.

Can the minister please inform the House about some of the work his ministry is doing to preserve clean water in our province?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, yesterday was World Water Day. I also want to start by thanking the member for the leadership she has been undertaking. As you know, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is the model on which the Great Lakes Protection Act was advanced.

I want to thank my friends the ministers of OMAFRA and MNRF, our two key partner ministries in implementing the Great Lakes Protection Act. The guardian council had its first meeting today with nine chiefs and grand chiefs. It had AMO. It had my friend Don McCabe from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It was 35 people who spent yesterday afternoon looking at priorities and solutions to improve the quality of the Great Lakes.

We are very quickly moving on this Legislature’s leadership in passing the Great Lakes Protection Act, and the first meeting yesterday was described by everybody as a great success.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I’ve seen the efforts of the government in protecting our water resources close to my home, as he has stated. In my riding of Barrie, our government launched the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan in 2009. It remains the most comprehensive watershed-based legislated plan to reduce phosphorus pollution and improve water quality and fish habitat in Lake Simcoe.

In October, we released the five-year report that shows that the health of Lake Simcoe is improving. Also, last fall our government passed the Great Lakes Protection Act legislation. The Great Lakes account for 21% of the world’s surface fresh water by volume. We must take care of them.

Can the minister please provide an update on our government’s efforts in protecting the Great Lakes, one of our greatest natural resources?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We run something called the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund, which funds almost 100 community projects across the Great Lakes and First Nations communities and municipalities. They’re partnerships that are already developing. One of the presentations yesterday was from our friend Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the warden of Bruce county, who is also the mayor of Bruce–Kinloss. The member from Huron–Bruce will know this: They are doing a partnership right now around tiling that’s going to significantly reduce the amount of nutrients going into the lake.

We now have a whole system of coordinated actions, and we’re improving data collection on the lakes. Working with natural resources and forestry, we’ll have better data on the quality of fish and invasive species as well as pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other problems—road salt in the lake. It’s a great way to celebrate World Water Day.

Rural economic development

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: In his most recent budget, the Minister of Rural Affairs quietly suspended the Rural Economic Development Fund. It’s a $14-million program specifically for rural areas. What does this mean, Speaker? Kemptville’s business retention and expansion program is in limbo—no access to the grant. Meaford’s barn business co-operative is waiting for an answer. What about the Ontario Water Centre project in Clearwater?

Speaker, when will this minister do his job, halt the suspension and actually fight for people in rural Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Agriculture?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I do appreciate the question from the member from Haldimand–Norfolk this morning.

Indeed, I remember that party, when the previous Premier of Ontario announced the Drummond commission—the Drummond commission looked at all the business support programs in the province of Ontario—I remember they would stand up, day in and day out, and implement all the recommendations for the Drummond commission. One of those recommendations was to move all our business support programs under one umbrella.

That’s exactly what we’re doing with the RED program: We’re moving it over to my colleague Minister Duguid under the Jobs and Prosperity Fund. People who were formerly supported by RED will now be able to make applications to the Jobs and Prosperity Fund, and we’ll continue to invest in rural Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Again to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: The minister once said, “With the help of the RED program, rural communities will be better positioned to attract investment, create jobs and sustain a highly skilled workforce.” Despite the minister’s obvious belief in the program, he suspended it.

However, when meeting with Oxford county farmers on February 22, the minister told them that the applications were “in the pipeline” and they would be reviewed shortly.

My question: Did the Minister of Rural Affairs not know that his government suspended his vital rural program, or does he simply not care what he tells people across rural Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for asking me the supplementary.

We indeed certainly believe that the RED program is very important to rural Ontario. That’s why we took the components of the RED program and, as the Drummond commission recommended, put it under one program, the Jobs and Prosperity Fund. We’ll continue to look at those applications that are in the pipeline to make sure that they are honoured because they have significant importance to rural communities.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when they were in power they closed 32 ag offices right across the province of Ontario.

Special-needs students

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Education.

A few weeks ago, the Legislature hosted students for the model Parliament. Seamus McKenna from Hamilton Mountain was one of them. Seamus has struggled throughout his school years due to a severe learning disability. Last September, things changed dramatically for him when he started attending the Trillium Demonstration School.

A couple of months ago, he took it upon himself to apply for the model Parliament program. It was an incredible achievement that neither he nor his family thought was possible. It’s a striking testament to the value of our demonstration schools and the positive effects that they have for our most vulnerable kids.

Will the minister tell Seamus and other families across this province that their specialized schools will stay open?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Once again, I’m pleased to respond to this question. Once again, no decisions have been made. We are reviewing the program, but what is very clear is that the program has been a success. We understand that.

This is one more example of a student who has fallen way, way behind—multiple grades—in terms of their reading. They have taken a very focused program at one of the demonstration schools. They have caught up in their reading, and they have been able to go back into the regular school with pride. We want that for more than just—about 150 is the enrolment right now in the four demonstration schools. We want that for more students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: I think the minister just said that closing down programs will make it equally inaccessible. It doesn’t make sense, Minister.

Last week, Seamus told me that tackling the required 400-word essay to apply for the model Parliament would never have been possible without access to the demonstration school programming. Attending Trillium gave Seamus the confidence to apply, even without telling the adults in his life.

Seamus is only one of the many students whom I’ve heard from on this important access to a specialized environment in the school, especially when this government continues to cut special education funding from school boards. Some $22 million was taken away from various boards last year. Families and kids deserve better from this government.

I will ask again: Will the minister commit, today, to keeping these schools open?

Hon. Liz Sandals: First of all, the NDP does have a problem with the definition of cuts. Some $22.5 billion two years in a row is not a cut, especially when there were fewer students this year than the previous year. That actually means we spent more per pupil.

But what I do want to do is congratulate Seamus on his wonderful achievement in being accepted to the model school. Students in the demonstration schools describe to me the wonderful experience of being able to read a novel for the first time in their lives, of being able to read a text book for the first time in their lives and about being able to write an essay for the first time in their lives. We want more students to have that experience, and that’s why we’re focusing on the consultation process, to find out how to improve the experience for more students.

Hydro rates

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

We know that openness and transparency are key to good government. In fact, the more we know about how we are doing, the better a job we can do to create a strong, competitive environment for people and businesses in Ontario to thrive. In my riding of Halton, there are dozens of new and emerging businesses opening their doors all the time. For them to be successful, they must have strong, useful information, so they can plan for the future.

Yesterday the quarterly Ontario Energy Report was posted. It provides a wealth of information and data about electricity, oil and natural gas in the province. This is valuable information for Ontario businesses. The document included the reporting of industrial electricity prices for all Canadian provinces and US states. This is the first time that the Ontario Energy Board has provided jurisdictional comparison data.

Minister, can you please tell us more about this additional information on electricity pricing?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Halton for the question.

The Ontario government is committed to being the most open, transparent and accountable government in the country, and opening up government data supports this commitment.

We’re proud to say that the IESO has made North American jurisdictional data for industrial electricity prices available through yesterday’s release of the Ontario Energy Report. In their 2016 Emerging Stronger report, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce proposed enhancing the transparency of electricity pricing. We thank them for their helpful work. This report provides more information on industrial electricity prices in Ontario and a transparent comparison that demonstrates how competitive Ontario’s industrial rates are within North America. We’re proud to have made that possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the minister for that answer and for his hard work in the energy sector. This information will be extremely helpful to the business community and other stakeholders.

I’ve spoken with numerous Halton residents and business owners about the cost of electricity and they often ask for more information. People want to understand how and why rates change.

Measuring and putting our electricity rate into context through these comparisons is key to better understanding the electricity system and how it works. By improving access to vital data, we help businesses grow, spur innovation and solve problems. By increasing transparency, accountability and engagement, the result is better policy, better programs and better outcomes for all Ontarians.

Minister, can you please share with the House what the results of this comparison indicate?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, the results of this comparison indicate that our hard work to maintain competitive electricity rates is showing results. Industrial rates in northern Ontario are among the lowest in Canada and lower than 49 American states. Industrial rates in southern Ontario are lower than in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, California and below the American average.

While other jurisdictions are still burning dirty coal for two thirds of their power, our government is proud that we have achieved competitive rates while undertaking the largest climate change initiative in North America. The numbers are publicly available through the Ontario Energy Report website.

The members opposite should recognize these facts and stop discouraging industry investments in Ontario. The opposition may choose to talk Ontario down, but we will continue to work with our partners and industry to build this province up.

Health care funding

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

We understand your government is prepared to repeat history with Ornge, as Ornge Air signs yet another lease with AgustaWestland, the same company under criminal investigation by the OPP anti-rackets branch.

For the past 13 years, your government has wasted billions of dollars on shady contracts. From SAMS to eHealth to Ornge, money is being squandered instead of being invested where it is needed the most: making our seniors’ drug care affordable and increasing access to long-term-care beds.

I’d like to know from the minister, how does she feel about this continued waste and mismanagement at a time when her government is looking to double the cost of seniors’ drugs, when 24,000 seniors are without access to a nursing bed, and when she has yet to find money to rebuild 30,000 outdated beds? Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask: What is her plan to address these glaring and negative impacts to our seniors?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There were so many elements to that question, I hope you’ll forgive me if I focus on one or two. I hope they’re the ones that you intended, or we could, perhaps, in the supplementary—but again, as I said earlier this week, when it comes to Ornge, we’re in a new regime, a new culture at Ornge as well, where patient satisfaction is as good as it has ever been. It’s actually excellent in terms of the patient experience, those 18,000 individuals who depend on air transport, either fixed-wing or helicopter transport, across this province.

We have a brand new board; we have a new governance structure, a new level of accountability and transparency that is so effective at providing that important care that people need at a time of crisis.

But I would hope that in the supplementary question, there is some guidance to me on specifically which issue the member opposite would like me to focus on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, I’ll make it simple: Maybe you should start respecting seniors.

Last week, I held a media conference here at Queen’s Park to repeat my call for you to issue a plan of action on when and where you will build the needed beds that your government has promised and to halt your government’s plan to double the cost of seniors’ drugs.

If you denounced the waste and billions spent on failed programs like eHealth, Ornge and SAMS, started managing your budgets properly and didn’t spend $12 billion a year in interest payments, then you would have the money for the seniors’ drug plan, and money to build the needed nursing home beds and eliminate the shameful long-term-care wait-list.

Mr. Speaker, how can this minister defend the Ornge contract and the amount spent on interest to support the government’s overspending in the face of 24,000 seniors without access to a nursing bed and seniors facing nearly doubled prescription drug costs?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, apart from the $12 billion over the next decade that we’re spending on capital investments for new hospitals, apart from the 345 million new dollars that we’re investing in our hospitals—over one billion new dollars in health care—here’s what we’re doing for our seniors: an additional $250 million each year and growing for home and community care; $75 million over three years for community-based hospice and palliative care. We’re expanding, as the member referenced, 173,000 more seniors going from $100 deductible for their drugs to $0 deductible.

The shingles vaccine: Making that available is a savings estimated at $170 per senior between 65 and 70 years of age. We’re removing the debt retirement charge. We’re adding $10 million into our long-term-care homes for behavioural supports because we’re seeing more dementia, including Alzheimer’s.

There are many, many things that we’re doing for our seniors so that we’re providing them with the services they require and deserve.

Heritage conservation

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

The Premier knows that the Ontario Heritage Act and other laws protect archaeological and burial sites in our province. Yet, while the Premier was Minister of Transportation, she allowed the construction of the new Allandale GO station in Barrie; she allowed the digging through the ossuary, an area containing hundreds of bodies in one of the oldest Huron-Wendat villages found to date.

We have strict laws in Ontario to protect these sites. They carry severe penalties: millions of dollars and jail terms. What is the Premier going to do to hold to account the people who have done wrong and allowed the desecration of this historical First Nations site?

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to first start by saying that our government has a lot of respect for the heritage and for the aboriginal community here in the province of Ontario and will continue to work to make sure that we continue to build a strong relationship. I also know that the Minister of Government and Consumer Services will want to weigh in on this issue.

I want to just say that we’re the first government in 30 years to change the heritage act here in the province of Ontario. We made those changes to make sure that we brought in the consultation with the aboriginal community.

At any given moment, when we find human remains or any heritage-significant pieces through the archaeological process, it automatically goes to the third phase. We’re currently in that phase right now, and it’s a little bit too early to say what the next step is.

But we will make sure that this file is handled in a very respectful way, and I would like to thank the member for the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: There have been seven—count them, seven—archaeological reports done on this rare Huron-Wendat burial site, which is now the Allandale GO station. All of them said not to go ahead and to look for burial first.

But instead of taking these reports into account, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport looked at the one report that said, “Go ahead and dig.” They ignored all of the others. They ignored their own work. They ignored their own letter that they wrote to the city of Barrie saying that this site needed further archaeological work because of the artifacts on site.

Speaker, the government broke their own law. There should be consequences to that.

Why was this government so negligent in their actions and when will they hold the people to account, and, more importantly, when will they fix this wrong? Chi meegwetch, Speaker.

Hon. Michael Coteau: To the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’m pleased to take the supplementary question.

The determination as to whether or not the area is an aboriginal people’s burial ground is made by the registrar of cemeteries, and we obviously take this issue very seriously. This decision is informed by archaeological reports that are currently being reviewed. They’re being reviewed by MTCS, my