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

March 18, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Mar-18 (PDF)

L113 - Tue 18 Mar 2014 / Mar 18 mar 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 18 March 2014 Mardi 18 mars 2014

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

SKILLED TRADES

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

JOB CREATION

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

HYDRO RATES

HOME CARE

PAN AM GAMES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CO-OP EDUCATION

FLOODING

HEALTH CARE

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WIND TURBINES

SMALL BUSINESS

POPE JOHN PAUL II DAY

CANADIAN WOMEN’S

AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP

EVENTS IN HAMILTON MOUNTAIN

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

PARALYMPIC SLEDGE HOCKEY TEAM

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

MINIMUM WAGE

CHARITABLE GAMING

RANKED BALLOTING

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

MINIMUM WAGE

HYDRO RATES

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

WIND TURBINES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

LYME DISEASE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 POUR UN SALAIRE

MINIMUM ÉQUITABLE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2013, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver, critically ill child care and crime-related child death or disappearance leaves of absence / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour les aidants naturels, le congé pour soins à un enfant gravement malade et le congé en cas de décès ou de disparition d’un enfant dans des circonstances criminelles.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to stand up and talk about the family caregiver leave act, employment standards amendment. This act actually has had a lot of discussion in this House. It has been a long-standing issue that we know of in the province of Ontario. The bill obviously provides an unpaid, job-protected leave of absence to provide care or support to certain family members who have serious medical conditions.

Let’s be clear, the bill is very small; however, it is a positive step forward. But there would be relatively low take-up if the federal government does not change EI so that caregivers taking advantage of the leave have some form of income support. The government must push the federal government hard to change EI so that there is some form of income support for those who are taking leave.

Most employees don’t understand their rights under the Employment Standards Act. Most of us in this House would have had people come into our offices in our constituencies, and you can tell that they are not familiar with what rights they have as employees under the current Employment Standards Act. The government must ensure that Ontario workers know about the leave and that there are no employer reprisals for employees wishing to take the leave.

Anyone who has ever gotten ill on the job—my sister just recently went through this. She’s in a unionized environment. She had to have emergency surgery about three weeks ago. Originally, the employer, of course, is very understanding because they care about the employee—hopefully—and they want to make sure that that employee gets healthy fast. But it didn’t take long in the recovery process for that employer to say, “Well, can you do this? Can you do that?” She’s off work. She’s recovering from major surgery. There has to be some protection for those employees, and they need to know their rights.

In today’s life of work, employers have high expectations. First of all, when you look at the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario, you do feel fortunate to have a job. We’re going through the hiring process with the Financial Accountability Officer right now. It’s interesting to be on the other side of that employment table because, while it has taken some time, almost nine and a half months—we wanted to hire an FAO, not to give birth to a Financial Accountability Officer.

But it’s interesting to be on the other side of that table asking questions of people who potentially would take a very serious responsibility in the province of Ontario, and we of course take it very seriously. That’s why we brought it to the budget process in the first place.

Let’s just take a little step back around the background of Bill 30. All employees who are covered by the ESA, whether full-time permanent or short-term contract, would be eligible for leave. This is important, because what we’re seeing in the province of Ontario today is that there is more part-time precarious work—more so than we have ever seen. When the government stands up and talks about their jobs numbers, they’re including that forced part-time, that precarious work, and sometimes they’re even including those interns, those unpaid internship numbers, in their stats.

It’s a big number, but it’s the quality of the work and the quality of the employment that we are most concerned about on this side of the House.

From the background perspective though, there would be no requirement that an employee be employed for a particular length of time or that the employer employ a specified number of employees in order for the employee to qualify. A qualified employee would be able to take up to eight weeks per calendar year per family member, and a physician would determine whether the condition of the family member is indeed serious in the meaning of the act. In other words, the physical recommendation triggers eligibility for the leave.

Other leaves under the Ontario ESA currently include pregnancy leave, parental leave, family medical leave, organ donor leave—I was actually very pleased to see this included in there. Organ donation, of course, is a huge issue in the province of Ontario, and we do have, I think, a shared responsibility to ensure that we make it easy for people to donate organs. I personally just went through my form on my driver’s licence, and I’m going to be an official organ donor. It could be a more streamlined process.

That, perhaps, is a conversation for another day, but I’m pleased to see that it’s included under leaves under the current ESA. Three other ones are personal emergency leave, declared emergency leave and reservist leave.

This new leave should not be confused, though, with the family medical leave, which provides up to eight weeks’ leave to provide care to a family member who has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death occurring within 26 weeks. Since 2004, there has been EI support for this leave, conditioned with a significant risk of death occurring within 26 weeks. These are heartbreaking, heartbreaking stories when family members are called upon to help in a palliative care or in a hospice care situation.

Of course, we are seeing this happen more and more, because the hospice sector—those who are advocating for dying with dignity, if you will—is completely underfunded. In fact, it’s a miracle that the hospice sector actually gets as much done and helps as many people as they do. They rely, of course, heavily on philanthropy and fundraising, and certainly there is room for improvement on that funding file.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I know home care.

Ms. Catherine Fife: And home care—that’s a very good point. Home care, actually, would be of huge assistance with family caregiver provisions. Certainly, when you do see people coming home, the transition from hospital to the home has not been very successful. That’s another reason why we negotiated for some secure home care funding in the last budget, the five-day home care guarantee, and we were successful in that.

I was very pleased, actually: I attended a LHIN meeting in Kitchener–Waterloo not that long ago and heard first-hand how that budgetary measure that we negotiated, that concession that we sought, to support the last budget actually is making a difference in the lives of people in Kitchener–Waterloo and indeed across the entire province. In Waterloo region, it’s actually $7 million to the local CCAC, and it is making a tangible difference in the quality of home care in Kitchener–Waterloo.

Just to complete the backgrounder on this file, though, it should also be noted that caregivers covered by a collective agreement or in a managerial position can sometimes get permission to use their own sick days to care for family members who are seriously ill. That’s still a very difficult negotiation to have with your employer, quite honestly, because as I mentioned, the pressure that employees receive in this modern age of work is that you work all the time, and those expectations are quite high. This is a hard thing to sometimes negotiate, Madam Speaker.

So for many working in a protected environment, if you will, there is not much value added in the bill. This reinforces the fact that enforcement of all ESA provisions needs to be strengthened, as those who work in the peripheral parts of the labour market will be reluctant to use these and other provisions of the ESA unless they are sure of no employer reprisal.

I will admit, this is actually very difficult to control because there is obviously a power imbalance and a power dynamic between an employer and an employee. All of us in the course of our lives have experienced it, I’m sure, and it’s something that we have to be mindful of and cautious of.

Under the employment standards, another short-term priority for action, I think, is to not cut the $6 million from the employment standards enforcement branch. This is a key component of it, and this is a key idea that’s come from us. I think this goes back to the effectiveness of the overall bill. As I said, this is a minor change but essentially a positive change, and it’s a step to provide a measure of job protection to those taking time off from work to care for family members who are seriously ill, but if you don’t have the enforcement piece in place and you don’t have the protection piece in place for the employer, it actually does very little, because it’s really just words on a page.

Obviously, it would be more effective if there was some sort of EI or other income support for that, but that doesn’t appear likely, given the current nature of the relationship between the provincial government and the current federal government. To say that that is a marriage that is not going well would really be an understatement, but it actually is the responsibility of the provincial government to reach out to the federal government.

It would be helpful, I think, quite honestly, if the federal government was more receptive to having a conversation about supporting those family members who take the time away from work to care for their family members. It’s a basic act of compassion, but there is definitely an economic imperative for that, because many people cannot afford to take the time away from their workplace to stay home with a child, with an elderly parent, and we are definitely seeing an increase in eldercare sort of downloaded, if you will, for basically a lack of options, to family members.

With an aging demographic, we are seeing the extended family come back into the original family homestead. We’re experiencing this personally, my own family, in Peterborough, and there are very few options. This is a key piece.

If you have an elderly parent who would love to stay at home and home care options are not exactly the answer, but they’re looking for a long-term-care facility, the wait-lists are incredible. It’s very similar, actually—when you think of the spectrum of our lives here, it reminds me of the same battles that I went through to get quality child care 15 years ago with my teenager. You get on a wait-list; you research the institutions.

You want to make sure that it’s a not-for-profit institution because you want to make sure all of that money that you are paying actually goes into the quality of the services and the quality of the care, and those spaces for child care mirror the same challenge that you have with finding quality eldercare, and we’re living that. Actually, all of us are going to live through that experience, but G30 looks to open a little window of opportunity, if you will, for family members to take time away from their workplace to care for a family member.

If you can’t afford to do it, then it’s just not going to happen, and then you’re left looking for the other community resources that, quite honestly, are stretched. I think it’s quite fair to say that those community resources are stretched.

Some stakeholders in the community across the province have said that they have no real problems with the act, but just like a lot of the legislation that the Liberal government has brought forward, there are huge gaps in it. I just go back to this common theme of legislation coming to the floor of this Legislature which is just really surface stuff. Sometimes you scratch the surface and you just get a little more surface.

I’m relatively new here. I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t build some of the other community supports which actually would create a more successful outcome. That successful outcome would mean that people can leave their workplace; they would have some financial security in doing so; they would have some employment security in doing so; and quite honestly they themselves would be supportive. That’s a major piece of this legislation that is missing.

Not every family member is qualified to care for a sick person. There are some skills that are involved. Supporting those family members as they navigate through some of those health issues is quite something.

I know that on the health file in my office, we’ve hired a full-time master’s of social work graduate whose full-time job is to help people navigate through a complex health care system which, quite honestly, sets up barrier after barrier to access quality care. There are a lot of press conferences and a lot of ribbon-cutting and a lot of media releases that say, “No, it’s streamlined.” I can tell you from personal experience that if you are trying to navigate through the health care system in the province of Ontario, you will run into an administrative, bureaucratic nightmare.

The full-time master’s of social work student that I’ve hired in my office, she helps, on average, 15 to 20 people each week just to access the system. And when you’re looking at mental health, for instance, when you consider the mental health issues that are prevalent in the province of Ontario, there’s a whole other set of barriers and walls that are set up there.

We, of course, want to see some supports for employees who have to take leave from their workplace to care for family members. It does happen anyway. Out of pure desperation, and actually out of compassion and out of love, many mothers will leave their job to care for a sick child. Many husbands will take an unpaid leave from their workplace to care for an ailing spouse. They’re doing so, currently, without any protection right now.

We do want to see those protections put in place. We do want to see better supports put in place, though, for those family members. We have some outstanding and legitimate enforcement concerns with G30. Enforcement is always an issue with any employment standards—with the current ESA provisions.

Probably the biggest real obstacle to employees taking advantage of this leave—and I don’t even think it’s taking advantage. I mean, they’re really just stepping in where the system is failing. But when they do take a leave, the fear is the employer will take some sort of reprisal. In this current employment environment, the pressure is on to increase productivity, to go that extra step, to hold on to that job. Clearly, the state of unemployment in the province of Ontario, which is the highest across this country, especially with youth—youth has actually doubled; it’s almost 15% for youth in this province.

The options of taking a leave from that job without fear of reprisal—on the ground, in reality, it’s quite real.

We are seeing some issues that come into our office around quality health care, as I’ve mentioned. We have seen an increase in long-term-care facilities and the wait-lists for those, but we are committed to ensuring that at the next stage, this act actually is strengthened, and it’s only strengthened when the people that we serve come in and participate in the democratic process and ensure that their voices are heard in the legislation.

We’ve been consistent since this minority government has been established, and quite honestly, the people like it. I think the people of this province actually really are happy that this is a minority government because for the first time ever they’re seeing an exchange of ideas, and we’re forced to listen to each other.

The people of this province want their politicians and their public servants to actually work harder, and I think that they’re seeing that in real, tangible results that the NDP was able to accomplish in both budget processes, in the first in 2012, with the fairness tax and with increased supports for child care—child care is a long-standing issue in the province of Ontario—and in the last budget session, we were able to ensure that a Financial Accountability Officer will be part of this Legislature to double-check and to put that second sober thought, if you will, on policy decisions like moving gas plants around.

We’ve also been able to secure that home care and the youth employment strategy. We’re proud of those results, and people see that we are working hard to ensure that their priorities are brought to this Legislature.

We obviously will be supporting G30. We will be looking to strengthen it and to ensure that when family members are in that very untenable and stressful situation where they have to leave their place of work to care for a family member, they are supported, they are protected, and their family member is well cared for.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Mike Colle: The NDP member from Kitchener–Waterloo has to explain why she keeps on talking to this bill. It’s already gone through first- and second-reading debate and committee. People are waiting to get the simple protection: that if they have a child or loved one that’s sick at home and they take care of that child, they don’t lose their job. It’s a simple bill that’s been through this House and debated for days and days.

You talk about all these great plans that are grandiose; here’s a simple thing that helps people who need help to keep their job so they don’t lose their job if their loved ones are sick.

You sit here stalling, talking. Why don’t you just stand up and say that this bill needs to be passed and put it to a vote? Instead, you’re standing up talking and talking and talking. Let’s put your money where your mouth is.

People are waiting here because they’ve been fighting for this type of protection in Ontario for years. People don’t want to lose their job if they have to go home and stay with their sick child. We can’t then say, “Well, it’s the federal government’s fault,” if we don’t basically pass this simple protection about job protection.

The NDP can stand up and talk about how you’re going to make this utopia, but all we’re saying is put your money where your mouth is and help simple, hard-working families who have a loved one that’s sick. I don’t know if you understand that. When someone has cancer, when someone has heart disease, and they’re saying, “I have to stay at home,” and they ask their employer, “Please, I want to make sure I don’t lose my job,” the employer right now can say, “Forget it. You lose your job.”

So stand up and say that you want this thing to come to a vote so we can get on with the work of helping families, and then we can get more help from the federal government and do all these grandiose, utopian things you call for. But you won’t basically do the right thing and just say, “We’ve talked enough, we’ve debated enough. It’s gone to committee, we’ve had amendments, we’ve listened to all the delegates from across the province,” and you won’t do the right thing and just say, “Let’s vote and help families who have sick people at home. Let’s vote on it.”

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I don’t know what happened there. I’m supposed to be responding to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: I think he must have celebrated St. Patrick’s Day yesterday. He’s still celebrating.

My point, really, is this, though: This is another example of a government that will not use the legislative tools that they have to pass this bill. They have complete control—they have what they call a minor majority; they call it a major majority.

Interjection: It’s a minority.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, it’s a minor—it’s by one or two votes. They’re being propped up by the NDP, to be fair now.

Bill 21, though, in itself is a bill that I have some compassion and reason to support. What is wrong here, though? A good friend of mine, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Speaker, I want the people here to listen to me for a change.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence went on a bit of a rant. I had a lot of time for him. He’s a former minister. If he hadn’t given out $1 million to a soccer club he’d probably still be a minister.

Interjection: Cricket.

Mr. John O’Toole: Cricket, it was.

But here’s the deal: He knows very well, having been a cabinet minister, that he could use the tools to make this debate go away. And I’m challenging you to use them. But at the same time do not deny the member from Kitchener–Waterloo or any other member of this House the opportunity to voice the views of their constituents. It’s their democratic right.

Again I have great respect for the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I do, and I’ve said that twice now, so you can use it in your next election brochure. But here’s the deal: I have a family of five children and 10 grandchildren—caregiver leave. Now, in the committee, you did do the right thing—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Excuse me. Your time has expired.

The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I want to thank the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I think she did a great job debating the shortcomings of this bill. The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, although he’s entitled to his opinion, spent the last 20 minutes reading the newspaper and then complaining about us debating the bill over here.

The member from Kitchener–Waterloo talked about enforcement. This government had the opportunity, when they were making amendments to the ESA, to make a lot of better amendments. Enforcement is a huge issue in this province around the ESA. If I use the recent example that was in the newspaper this week for Terri-Lynn Garrie, who was paid $1.25 an hour when the minimum wage was $6, $8 and $10 an hour because there was no enforcement at Janus Joan Inc. in St. Catharines. Ten intellectually disabled workers worked there for 10 years. They were wrongfully dismissed and had to go to the human rights commission.

If the government had been doing their job, they would have had enforcement, and they would have enforcement out in manufacturing companies, in small businesses and large businesses across this province, but, instead, they allowed the disabled to be discriminated against by being paid $1.25 an hour. This woman, after 10 years, was awarded $142,000 in lost wages, $20,000 in lost income and $25,000 in damages because the province wasn’t doing its job having enforcement.

In a case where you can’t even get your wages, do you actually think that the government is going to put in enough ministry enforcement officers to make sure that people who may be entitled to sick leave—it will be a very small number because it only applies to full-time people—are actually going to get sick leave or caregiver leave off to look after their loved ones? I—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning, Speaker. I have to tell you, when I came in this morning, I was surprised and saddened to learn that we’re still going around the horn on this bill. Here we are at third reading. I’ve been told we’ve had 13 hours of debate getting to second reading, and we’ve had five hours of debate at the third-reading stage here.

The reality is, it’s not just us who want to see this go to a vote now; it is our stakeholders on this. I know the Heart and Stroke Foundation, for example, has met with I think every member of the Legislature, indeed every member of the opposition. They came away with the impression that the opposition was ready to go on this bill too. So I’m really perplexed and puzzled why we’re still here debating this. I think everyone has had their voice on this, sometimes multiple times.

This is an important bill. It’s part of a broader strategy to help families in Ontario, and it’s a great opportunity for those to take a leave. They don’t have to take the whole leave, as proposed in the bill. They can take a portion of the leave, so they can be with their loved ones in a time of need.

As I said, I’m very confused. Why are we here? Why are we still debating this? I think the member for Eglinton–Lawrence showed his passion for the importance of the bill. He’s trying to persuade our colleagues here to get on with it, to listen to what the stakeholders have said. They have also said, “Let’s get on with this.”

Every day that we keep going around the horn here on this, we are not getting closer to making this a reality for families. We need to stop stalling, and we need to start voting on this, in my view. I’m asking people to stop putting up speakers, so that we can have a vote. I think there are some good suggestions that we can take forward. So let’s move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, the member from Durham, the Minister of Consumer Services and my colleague here from Welland.

It’s interesting that there’s such bluster from that side of the House because, prior to Christmas, they worked with the PC caucus and, through a programming motion, tried to fast-track a number of pieces of legislation. When they tried to get something done for one company, EllisDon, they were able to fast-track and accelerate their own personal interests. Yet when I stand up in this House and point out the weaknesses of this piece of legislation, they cry foul. It is hypocritical and it is tiresome, and it’s the kind of cynical politics that people in the province are tired of.

When we stand up and we point out what the weaknesses are in this piece of legislation, and then we give you options to try to fix it—for instance, there are no maximum monetary limits on claims to be dealt with. There’s a two-year limitation period to file a complaint. There are two-year entitlements to claim unpaid wages and vacation. You could have addressed this. You could have done this.

Once again, though, the Liberal government brings a weak piece of legislation to this Legislature. Just with the optics, all that that side of the House is concerned about doing is looking like they are getting something done. I’m telling you something: The people of this province see right through it, and it’s our job to make sure they see it. They see you for who you are.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Further debate?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m pleased to have been asked to speak to Bill 21 here today. It’s an important bill and one that our party supports.

Bill 21, Employment Standards Amendment Act (Leaves to Help Families), 2014, proposes several amendments to the current Employment Standards Act to correlate with some similar changes that the federal government has made to the Canada Labour Code.

Our caucus is glad to see that changes our party presented when this bill was originally introduced as Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act—we’re pleased to see our changes incorporated.

The government, in their usual manner, did not properly consult on the original bill with stakeholders, or with the small business community in particular. This is a common theme with this government, as I have outlined in this House on several occasions. I am going to give you some examples now.

Just as with Bill 21, the government didn’t properly consult on the Ontario Northland issue, one of the issues that affect so many people throughout northern Ontario. One day, almost exactly two years ago this month, we heard that Ontario Northland was going to be put on the chopping block—a fire sale—with absolutely no consultation, much like Bill 21. We found that they had no consultation, in their typical style. It was quite a shocking revelation throughout all of the north, and here we are, two years later, and it’s still not resolved—

Ms. Soo Wong: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): A point of order.

Ms. Soo Wong: The member from Nipissing is supposed to talk about Bill 21. I don’t know how the Northlander has anything to do with Bill 21. I just want some clarity about that, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Oh, I’ll explain.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member needs to be reminded that his remarks have to be relevant to the bill being debated.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. The point I’m making is that there was absolutely no consultation on the original bill with stakeholders—on Bill 21—or with the small business community. I realize that the Liberals do not like to talk about the punishment that they inflicted on northern Ontario through the devastating fire sale of Ontario Northland. I can understand why they don’t want me to speak about that. I am making a comparison, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): A point of order.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Madam Speaker, we’re not talking about the bill under debate, which is what we’re supposed to be doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’m mindful of that and I ask the member to continue.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. Again, what I’m trying to do here is to illustrate that the government did not properly consult with the original stakeholders or the small business community, exactly the same thing that they did to Ontario Northland and to members of the north. So that point being made, let me move on to the second comparison.

Just as with Bill 21, the government didn’t properly consult with the stakeholders on the Lake Nipissing walleye limit reductions in northern Ontario either.

Just as with Bill 21, the government didn’t properly consult on the Far North Act when they devastated the mining and logging communities by taking half of northern Ontario off of the participation list in logging and forestry, which has crippled the mining industry and devastated the logging industry. There are 60 mills that are now closed throughout the north; 80% of all of the mills are closed because they had lack of consultation. We have mining companies now that have left northern Ontario for other mining jurisdictions.

Just as with Bill 21, where they did not properly consult, they obviously did not consult the general public when they proceeded to cancel the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants, which we have now learned cost us $1.1 billion.

Speaker, I think you’re starting to get the picture of this government’s inaction in terms of consulting with people in advance. They didn’t do it with the horse racing industry. The list could go on and on to make a comparison back to Bill 21.

Previously, my colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex highlighted the lack of consultation with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, in particular; however, we can see now they have followed through on making significant changes and improvements to this bill. They did come back with a better bill. That’s what consultation gets you. That’s what talking to your partners can get you.

Bill 21 will help in eliminating the inconsistencies that exist between our federal labour code and the provincial labour laws. As of June last year, the federal government started paying out benefits for what is the federal equivalent of the proposed critically ill child care leave. Additionally, as of January 2013, they have also begun implementing grants for 35 weeks for the equivalent of the proposed crime-related child death or disappearance leave.

Bill 21 would not incur any additional costs provincially. It would just protect the job from being terminated. Of course, we’re interested in putting families first. I think we all know of families or we’ve had family members who have faced personal health issues and can certainly understand why this bill is important and why it’s important to debate.

In Ontario, there are currently only two forms of leave available to workers that are protected under the Employment Standards Act: the family medical leave and the personal emergency leave. Under the current federal Employment Insurance Act, six weeks of employment insurance benefits may be paid to eligible employees under this leave. The family medical leave is an unpaid job-protected leave up to eight weeks within a 26-week period.

In order to be eligible, a qualified health practitioner must issue a certificate stating that an individual to be cared for has a serious medical condition and has a significant risk of death occurring within a period of 26 weeks. The personal emergency leave gives some employees the right to take up to 10 days of unpaid, job-protected leave each year due to injuries, illnesses and certain other emergencies or urgent matters. This type of leave would only be eligible for individuals who work for a company that regularly employs more than 50 employees.

Bill 21 includes the introduction of new types of leaves, and that’s why it’s so important to be talking about this, and that’s why it was so important to have brought this in advance and consulted in advance. The family caregiver leave offers up to eight weeks unpaid per year; the critically ill child care leave for up to 37 weeks for parents caring for a critically ill child; and a crime-related death or disappearance leave of up to 104 weeks for employees whose child dies as a result of a crime, or up to 52 weeks for employees whose child disappears as a result of a crime.

The family caregiver leave mirrors the family medical leave in many ways; however, it does not include the provision of significant risk of death within a 26-week period.

It’s important that this bill brings Ontario legislation in line with the federal legislation that was passed some time ago. We would like to see some important flexibility put into this program because it is fairly restrictive in the time frames, and I believe some of this was addressed at committee. One aspect of this bill is to keep seniors in their homes and allow that to happen. Of course, giving people the opportunity to take a leave from their job to care for a loved one—as I said, we’ve all had family members or friends of our families who have had to face health issues and challenges on that front.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association raised some issues with this, particularly around the days off. It could impact production in any manufacturing facility. I’m hoping the government will take that into account and work with them on this issue. Again, that’s all to do with consulting with your partners, your stakeholders, the members of the public, the business community who are going to be involved in these decisions. We can’t afford for Bill 21 to have a negative impact on the manufacturing sector, especially now when we have 600,000 men and women who woke up this morning without a job.

Since 2003, it has been said many, many times: Ontario has lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs, at the same time adding over 300,000 government workers to the payroll. Of course, taxpayers simply cannot afford to pay that cost and the burden of those extra workers.

The current government has erected a number of barriers to new jobs, including layers of unnecessary red tape and one of the highest costs of government in North America. We must ensure that Bill 21 doesn’t throw up any more barriers to business and business expansion. We cannot put new barriers in front of businesses and in front of job creators. I urge the government just to be careful with these bills that they are bringing forward. We are at a critical time in Ontario’s history. We’ve seen the impact—many of us, from all parties, travelled in the pre-budget consultations this year.

We had eight communities that we visited collectively, and we all heard the same things: skyrocketing energy rates, high taxes and red tape. These are part of the impediments to business creation, and we’re very concerned that Bill 21 not be added as part of the new burdens to business.

We hear and we talk of Kellogg’s, Heinz and Caterpillar all leaving Ontario. They’re still making cereal. They’re still making ketchup. They’re still making earthmoving equipment vehicles. They’re just not making them in Ontario anymore. As I said, when all three parties toured Ontario, we saw skyrocketing energy rates, high taxes and red tape as three of the greatest burdens to starting businesses and maintaining businesses here in the province of Ontario, which is why we see Kellogg’s, Heinz, Caterpillar—and I could use my last seven minutes just talking about the companies that have left Ontario.

In the United States, we are seeing major corporations bring home production from abroad because they need highly skilled workers and because they want to produce closer to their customers. Even Chinese companies are starting to make their products here in North America. In Ontario, we need to bring companies back to the province of Ontario, but we have to first get the fundamentals right. This is a great opportunity for Ontario, Bill 21, but we are competing directly with other provinces and with US states, where lower taxes, lower power rates, streamlined—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think just mentioning the bill and injecting that where there are other completely unrelated topics to the bill—I don’t really think that’s the spirit and intent of the standing order, Speaker. I think that our obligations are to speak to the bill or to vote on the bill, and I’d ask your consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I would remind the member of the point of order and to make sure that he puts it in the context of the bill.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I realize that the cabinet minister does not like hearing the truth about the state of Ontario that her government has created, Speaker. But I can tell you that—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Point of order, Speaker: Again, I’m suggesting that the standing orders be followed and that my motives are not questioned in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member, continue.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I realize that the Liberal government has created a skyrocketing-hydro-rates, high-taxes and red-tape regime, and Bill 21, if they were carefully listening to what I was saying—we want to make sure that Bill 21 doesn’t add to the burden that this government has already created, that has caused 600,000 men and women to wake up this morning without a job, which caused 300,000 manufacturing jobs to be lost in Ontario.

Ontario’s manufacturers require a champion who will ensure that power rates are competitive, that our provincial transportation system works well, that our schools and colleges educate people for the workplace of the 21st century, and that regulations that government imposes encourage competition and not deter it. Right now, we don’t have those conditions here in Ontario. That’s why I bring this up with respect to Bill 21: that we don’t want to see it causing undue burden.

We’ve heard from this government that hydro rates are going up another 42% in the next five years, and that surely is going to kill more jobs in the province and make life more unaffordable for seniors and for families impacted by Bill 21 who have loved ones at home who are sick.

I think that the bill speaks to the compassion that members of this Legislature have for the people we all represent. Whatever party we’re with, we really feel for those families struggling and for those loved ones who are ill. Honestly, most would agree with the kind of initiative. Who wouldn’t agree with the plan, as long as it’s well thought out and it’s not going to be harmful on the job creation side? When a person has an ill child or family member, we all think of them. We can sympathize with the stress that they are under.

We hope every child is going to live a happy and healthy life, but that’s not always the case. In these circumstances, it is important for all of us to show that type of compassion and understanding.

It’s good to see that we’re showing more compassion to family members who unselfishly give up their time to care for a family member and that we are working to provide a level support for them to do so. A streamlined piece of legislation is something we can support, one that eliminates inconsistencies and duplications.

For an aging or critically ill person, it makes a lot of sense to have family members around to care for them, particularly because the reality is that there’s a lack of long-term-care beds in this province. It’s a real concern here in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, I think it’s a shame when front-line services are cut and what replaces front-line services is more government bureaucracy. I look at the LHINs sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of front-line health care services right across the province just for the sake of a new bureaucracy.

Again, when dealing with the loss or disappearance of a child, it’s time that it finally gets recognized as it does now in Bill 21. During this heartbreaking period for any parent who might end up in this situation, providing them time is not only compassionate, but it’s absolutely the right thing to do. That’s why our party has been very supportive of this government’s piece of legislation.

This bill, as I said, which we are supporting, is important to many people in the province of Ontario, but there are major challenges that we have to address with this sitting of the Legislature. We’ve said that we need to clear the decks. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has been clear on that, that we need to get focused on what really matters in Ontario right now, especially after the losses at Heinz and Kellogg’s. I would encourage this government to start looking at the deficit and the jobs crisis that they have created here in Ontario today.

I’m sure the Liberal members have to agree with me that everywhere you go—we all saw it on the pre-budget consultations—people are concerned about their jobs so they can care for their loved ones. Bill 21, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, proposes several amendments to the current employment standards to correlate with some similar changes made with the federal government.

Again, I say we’re supporting this bill. I think that we need to always show a compassionate side for our loved ones and for our families. I wish that we would have had the consultation earlier in this rather than having the bill foisted on us with no consultation, as I said earlier—the same as we saw for Ontario Northland, the walleye fishing in the north, the tourism centres that were closed, the Far North Act. The list can go on and on, including the horse racing sector.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I listened carefully to the member from Nipissing, and he raised some concerns that had something to do with the bill in a roundabout way.

I’d like to use this opportunity to correct my record. Earlier I referred to this bill as Bill 30. It had been at one point, I think. It’s Bill 21, and I’d like to correct my record on that.

It is interesting, though, about priorities. I think that the member from Nipissing sort of touched on this. Earlier we heard that the Liberals just want this to be done. But I would encourage them—and there was some outrage about the fact that we’re still talking about the bill, debating the bill, pointing out weaknesses in the bill. That has taken quite some time. But earlier, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence—the Liberals need to organize their legislative agenda, and I would respectfully suggest that. They last called this bill—

Interjections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Oh, they’re yelling.

They last called this bill for debate on December 3. If this bill was such a priority, why didn’t it crack their legislative agenda until March 18? Once again, we are just seeing games from that side of the House.

Interjections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: If it is such a priority for you, then why did it take so long to get to, March 18?

The member from Nipissing has raised some good concerns, though, around process and around consultation. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, we share the same concern. If you had truly done a thorough consultation on this piece of legislation, you would have heard some legitimate concerns around enforcement, which you have not included in the legislation.

So it is a small step, a small, small positive step, but it’s just typical gamesmanship on the part of the Liberal government.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me. I want to first off welcome and recognize amazing champions of families and community care in the assembly today. We’ve got Krista Orendorff, Cristin Napier and Sumi Shanmuganathan from the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Joanne Di Nardo, Kelly Gorman and Florentina Stancu-Soare from the Canadian Cancer Society. We have Delia Sinclair representing the Alzheimer Society, Gene Long representing SEIU, Abidah Lalani representing the MS Society as part of the Ontario Caregiver Coalition, and Natasha Mistry from the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of Canada.

They’re all here because they support this bill 100%. They are all here because they want to get this bill passed yesterday, Speaker, so that we can help our families. They have been—Speaker, I want to apologize to them on behalf of my colleagues from the opposition parties for their shameful behaviour of continuing to drag out this important piece of legislation. Hours and hours of debate: 13 hours of debate during second reading, two hours of committee and amendments to the bill that were proposed by the opposition parties at the committee level, and now five hours of third reading debate.

They’re being told, these advocates—and I’ve worked with them again and again—“Oh, we support the bill. We want to pass that bill immediately.” However, what we see is the same old filibustering tactics. That is not acceptable. That is not fair to these hard-working people who would rather be in the community right now serving so many of our families across the province, as opposed to sitting in the Legislature.

The time for partisanship is over. Let’s vote for this bill now and help our families across the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened very carefully to the member from Nipissing, a colleague of mine. He was really trying to put the entire story together, kind of the pieces of a puzzle. I have great respect for the work he has done as our critic on finance, and that role exposes him to both the strengths of Ontario and the weaknesses.

What he was trying to say is that the most troubling

part in Ontario is those 600,000 families that don’t have a job. That causes stress. Part of what you’re doing here in Ontario with some of these bills—and I think you’re being disingenuous on this particular bill because it’s actually a year; it was March 5, 2013, when it was introduced. If you really wanted to pass this very small bill—now, how poorly it was drafted. If you look at the third reading copy after it has been to committee, it’s full of stroked-out sections and additions. So what we’ve done—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: I give them full credit. At least the NDP are standing and bringing voice to—in their case, they spoke this morning about the inappropriate amount of enforcement provisions within this. That’s something that should be dealt with in regulation, and the government, rather than just getting up and saying, “We’ve talked too much about it,” should get up and actually add value to the discussion and say how you’re going to enforce it. What are the fines? What resources are you putting into it? You’re downloading this cost to the employers. That’s who’s paying it. It isn’t costing you a nickel. You’re giving it to the employers to pay it.

So take this debate seriously. Our finance critic, you’ve criticized him twice when he was trying to make it so important that Ontario has to have health in the economy so that families can get out from under the stress of looking at their hydro bill or whatever else is causing them grief in their family. Think of the seniors that you’re punishing this past winter—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to correct my record, Speaker. Earlier in my comments, I mentioned two hours of committee hearings. I meant to say two days of committee hearings.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Further comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I thought it was nice that you raised all the groups that are here, particularly the one around heart and stroke. I can tell you that I’ve used the Heart and Stroke Foundation when I had my open-heart surgery, and the importance that they are to the community, so maybe you can take it back to say thank you. I’m here today because of the good work that Heart and Stroke did when I needed their time.

Having said that, during that time of illness I needed a family member to take care of me. When I came home from the hospital, it was hard for me to walk five steps. I needed somebody to make sure I took my pills, to make sure I got to the washroom okay, helped me do the five steps and take me outside—to make sure that I was doing all those things. That meant that one of my family members had to take time off work. I had to rely on an employer who would have to say that they could take the time off work for the five days.

She works in a unionized environment—she’s a principal, so it was easy, quite frankly, for her to take the time off. They allowed her to take as much time off as she needed. In this particular case, it ended up being a couple of weeks so that I could take care of myself after a couple of weeks.

But the problem you have—and this is why it was so important that the enforcement part was talked about. In a unionized environment, it may be a little easier to get time off because you have a collective agreement. You have a number of things that you can do. In a non-union workplace, how do you get the time off? In that same circumstance, using myself as an example, the employer could say no. The enforcement language that’s in place here isn’t strong enough to make sure that the employer can’t say no. That has been the concern—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The time is up.

The member for Nipissing has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank the members from Kitchener–Waterloo and Niagara. I want to thank the Minister of Labour.

I particularly want to thank our member from Durham for speaking on the supplementary. The member from Durham talked about getting the fundamentals right, and that’s what I wanted to use these last moments to talk about.

We are supporting Bill 21. Let’s get that very clear. What we are saying is, they brought this out without consultation, without talking to the stakeholders. That’s the point I want to end with, that’s so very, very critical. I understand the personal attack. I don’t have any difficulty with that.

I know that, yesterday, I disclosed, through the Focus on Finance piece, the new secret documents that we developed. I brought them to this Legislature yesterday; I’ll be bringing them back again today. I can understand why they like to shoot the messenger. That’s their way. I understand that. I’m used to that from the Liberal government. It happens to be part of my role, first as energy critic and now as finance critic, to be on the receiving end of these secret documents.

I like to talk about those because they tell you what’s really in their hearts and minds over there, being told one thing and spreading a complete opposite story as truth. That’s the problem we have. We know that’s what this government does, being told one thing and saying something completely opposite to the stakeholders, to the financial community and to the bond-rating agencies.

So I understand why they yell and heckle and can do that. It doesn’t hide the very fundamental that they brought a bill without consultation. It’s about the 10th time they’ve done that since I’ve been here in only two and a half years and, quite frankly, they don’t like being exposed for that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Actually, it’s truly my pleasure to stand up here today and contribute to this debate on Bill 21. The reason for that is, I want to exercise my democratic right as the representative of London–Fanshawe constituents who asked me to come here and give them a voice to every bill that’s presented in this House.

The reason I say that—and there’s no disrespect to the organizations that are here today to see that this bill moves forward and gets voted on. I absolutely want this bill to move forward. I also support this bill, as the New Democratic Party members do here in this House.

But there is a process that we must follow. It’s a democratic process that we set up here in Canada, in Ontario, and that’s what I believe in. So I want to have a voice on this bill. It was introduced, and I know that it’s gone for first reading. I also know it went to second reading and then it went back to committee, where a lot of important work was done. But if we continue to push, to rush debate, what is the next bill that we’re going to rush through?

We have to set a line of standards when we have bills, and the standards have been set in Queen’s Park, in the Legislature, of how and when and where to debate bills, and this is the place. So please allow every member in this House to stand up and speak to this bill as they see fit.

The government here—there’s a lot of filibustering. They accuse the opposition parties of filibustering: absolutely not. Do not accuse a member of filibustering when they wish to sincerely and passionately speak to an important bill.

You obviously want to push this bill through. We believe that this is a good thing for family members, but we also, again, have concerns. So even though the bill has gone to committee and has gone through those amendments, it doesn’t mean it’s a perfect bill. It doesn’t mean that we agree with the entire concept of this bill.

We agree with the principle of the bill. We all know that family members take ill and that there aren’t enough home care supports in place to help our family members when they’re ill. Therefore, a lot of that responsibility falls back to adult children, parents, grandparents etc.

This is not the first time—and we have to clear this up. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo brought it up, and I was going to state this as well: This is not the first time this bill has been presented in the House. The member who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs brought it forward—excuse me, the labour minister at the time brought it forward; she is now the municipal affairs minister—but that bill got dropped, taken off the table. The reason—we forget why that was—was because the Liberal government—

Interjection: Prorogued.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, they prorogued. Why did they prorogue this Legislature, Speaker? Not in the interests of the people of Ontario, not in the interests of my constituents of London–Fanshawe, but in the interests of the Liberal government leadership race. That’s the reality.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s because they were embroiled in a scandal.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The member from Welland has mentioned the embroiled scandals. But I don’t want to use that as a theme. What I want to add to the discussion is, I want to add my voice to the debate because I believe it’s important to discuss amendments after a bill goes to committee. It’s incumbent upon us to discuss those amendments and whether or not they’ve actually accomplished what this bill is intended for, the purpose of this bill at the time that it went to committee and how it came back—what it looks like now.

It went to committee. We made some changes. Now what does it look like? What are our comments and our debate towards this bill? That’s what we’re here doing today.

I see the organizations are nodding, and they agree. They agree that, yes, we should be talking about these amendments and do they serve the purpose of this bill. Do they serve the purpose of the people it’s intended to affect? That’s what I’m going to speak about today.

I also want to talk about maybe, from my perception, how someone stands up in this House and presents their argument, fact, debate.

I see the member from Ottawa—Centre?

Interjection: South.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —South nodding his head. For me, if someone stands up and speaks clearly and respectfully and has facts and is thoughtful, I listen. My ears open up and I listen. For a member who’s showcasing, flailing their hands, altering their voice up and down, almost like they’re shouting at another person, for me, I lose the subject matter of what they’re talking about.

If we really want to have a fulsome, considerate debate, let’s speak in a tone where people are going to open their ears and listen to what we have to say, because the member from Kitchener–Waterloo pointed out very clearly that it feels like cynical politics. It feels like games they’re playing when they’re yelling and screaming across the way, pointing their finger and accusing us, or accusing members, of filibustering and not respecting the fact that organizations are here and want this bill passed today. Speaker, I just want to point that out.

When people speak in a way that they actually draw people in, that’s when people listen. I don’t know how the people who are watching us today, sitting on their couches in their living room, are receiving messages when they hear a respectful tone and information and the sincerity of a member when they speak, as opposed to someone who’s maybe grandstanding—and political posturing—trying to make someone else look like they’re not sincere in this debate. I don’t know how that comes across, but that’s just my thought.

I also want to say that I listened to the member from Niagara Falls and that story. That is the perfect example. Here we have someone who had a very fatal sickness, a heart attack issue, and was at home and needed help. I’m not sure why the home care piece maybe didn’t work out, but if that’s the case—you often hear those stories. We get a lot of calls in my community office about the lack of getting home care when they need it.

I did present a five-day home care guarantee in this House. It’s crucial, when you have someone—as the member from Niagara Falls had a situation—with a heart issue, she or he cannot wait more than five days to have that home care. If he was in rural Ontario, that could have been a grave problem, because they wait for home care an exorbitant amount of time, compared to people in urban areas.

His spouse, his partner, worked for a public education system that allowed them to have that flexibility to take time off. That’s great—two weeks that they needed, to get a helping hand, to get back on their feet.

I’m very pleased that we have the member from Niagara Falls here in good health. That probably made the world of difference, that he was able to have that one-to-one care from his family member.

The other thing I want to talk about is what I have personally experienced through someone I know who is going through a very, very difficult, rough patch in their life right now. This woman is fairly young, and her family has been having issue after issue after issue and would require this time off to help with family medical problems, with family traumatic problems.

I noticed that one of the amendments that was brought to committee originally—it’s been stroked out here—was that the employee had to take full-week periods. This is why this debate is very important, because we can actually highlight. Organizations probably were part of that committee process and gave their feedback, but the public wasn’t. Employees weren’t, perhaps. They’re working; they can’t come and listen every day to committee deputations. They may not have the time to go to the Hansard and find out what those amendments were. That’s our job.

That’s our job, to communicate what those amendments look like after the committee process has happened, and this is what this opportunity is all about.

I encourage the Liberal government members to stand up and talk about those amendments and how they benefit people or maybe if there’s a weakness to those amendments—

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: That’s right.

Please don’t filibuster yourselves and accuse other members of holding up debate and pushing this vote through. That’s not what it’s about today. Today it’s about talking about the amendments that happened in committee and how they affect this bill, and how they affect the general public, and employees specifically, who are working and need that time off to look after family members. Speaker, that was one of the amendments: striking out that employees must take time off a week at a time.

When I looked at the amendments, I went to the table in the Legislature and I said, “Well, okay, I’ve looked through this. I see that that has been taken out. Where is the replacement piece to that?” Is there another condition somewhere in this bill that says they have to take two weeks off at a time, three days off at a time, eight weeks off at a time? Lo and behold, there wasn’t a replacement clause in that time.

Speaker, did you want to stand? I anticipate that you might be—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I was waiting for you to come to at least the end of the sentence.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It is close to 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise to welcome the Grain Farmers of Ontario, including Chair Henry Van Ankum, who are here today at Queen’s Park. I hope that all members will take time to speak with them at their reception this evening in room 228.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Samantha Machado, a co-op student working at my office, a fourth-year Ryerson social worker.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome, for the third time, Julia Martin, and Elizabeth and Mike Martin from my riding of Ottawa Centre, who are the grandparents of Caroline Falkner and grandparents of our former page Amy Falkner. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Aujourd’hui, je voudrais présenter M. Denis Vaillancourt, le président de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, qui est avec nous et qui a reçu hier l’Ordre de la Pléiade, et sa vice-présidente Julie Lutete, qui est vice-présidente de minorités raciales et ethnoculturelles francophones de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted today to welcome, in the public gallery, Matt Boudreau from my office. He has family visiting from Davenport, Iowa: Paul Boudreau, Cole Boudreau and Grant Albansoder. Welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome page Jane Oleksiw and her father, Bob Oleksiw, who is in the public gallery in this morning. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to welcome Joanne Di Nardo, Kelly Gorman and Florentina Stancu-Soare from the Canadian Cancer Society, who are here in support of Bill 21.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to welcome Karen Laffrenier, proud mom of Callista Laffrenier. She’s up in the public gallery. I don’t know why she’s there today, but welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from—yes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to introduce my brother Vince Marchese, who has not been here for a long, long time. He is a retired French teacher—something that, every now and then, I think I might have liked to have done for a lifetime, when we consider pensions or lack of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his statement. I got thrown off; I apologize to the member for missing his riding.

On behalf of the MPP for Kenora–Rainy River, celebrating our page Mira Donaldson, mother Kelly Spicer and father Guy Donaldson are here visiting their daughter.

Also, on behalf of the Attorney General, Urooj Ali’s mother, Naila Ali; father, Syed Muhammad Ali; and brother Ahmed Syed Baktihar are in the gallery visiting the pages.

Welcome, and thank you for being here.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finally, to all members—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s kind of funny when you say something out of context and everyone says, “Uh oh, what’s going to happen?”

I’d like the pages to assemble to be introduced. Oh, somebody frogged. You guys realize that one of your colleagues is going to get teased for frogging? Okay.

I would like all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 40th Parliament: Urooj Ali from Kingston and the Islands; Bani Arora from Bramalea–Gore–Malton; Zohaib Aslam from Mississauga–Erindale; Megan Barkey from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock; Anthony Bello from Vaughan; Calvin Devries from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; Divya Dey from Etobicoke Centre; Mira Donaldson from Kenora–Rainy River; Caroline Falkner from Ottawa Centre; Simon Hopkins from Ajax–Pickering; Nusaybah Khan from Scarborough–Rouge River; Justin Kim from Don Valley West; Nicholas Lacoste from Kitchener–Conestoga; Callista Laffrenier from Timiskaming–Cochrane; Mustfah Madlol from London West; Kathryn Nicol from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; Isabella O’Brien from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale; Jane Oleksiw from Niagara Falls; Jonah Opler from Eglinton–Lawrence; Eli Park from Parkdale–High Park; Milana Thibodeau Morris from St.

Catharines; and Samantha Unger from York Centre. These are our pages.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Get back to work.

The Minister of Finance on an introduction.

VISITORS

Hon. Charles Sousa: It gives me great pleasure to introduce members of the Ontario Securities Commission who will be joining us this morning. That includes Howard Weston, the chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, as well as Aly Vitunski and Blair Stransky. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If there are no further introductions, it is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to ask a question today to the Acting Premier.

Less than a day after your government announced it would be bringing forward accountability and transparency legislation, you announced the appointment of Sandra Pupatello, a former leadership candidate for your party and a McGuinty Liberal cabinet minister, to chair the embattled Hydro One. This took place without a public process and without an application process.

She is set to make $150,000 a year or, based on last year’s schedule, $3,800 an hour. This is at a time when most Ontarians cannot afford to pay their hydro bills and when jobs are leaving this province by the tens of thousands. Ontarians are rightfully cynical over this patronage appointment.

I asked yesterday, given that the Ontario PC government would fire Sandra Pupatello, will this government expose what they have said they would pay her in severance?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have two agencies in particular that have had chairs who have been in place for upwards of 10 years, Mr. Speaker. In the normal course, we would replace chairs who have been in place that long.

We did look at the abilities of a number of people. I would say, first of all, with respect to Ontario Power Generation, we appointed Bernard Lord, former Premier of New Brunswick, who had tremendous experience and who incidentally has Conservative ties, I believe. We’re very proud of that Conservative appointment, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. John Yakabuski: CYA. CYA.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’re very proud of that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you’re finished.

Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the Liberals had a Senate, Sandra Pupatello would be the government leader in the Senate.

We’re tired, on this side, of Liberal government hacks. The sense of Liberal entitlement has worn very thin. I didn’t hear what he is paying not only Sandra Pupatello in her severance, but also Bernard Lord, who this caucus does not think is fit to run the OPG.

Not only are they going to be forced to pay for these exorbitant salaries, as well as severances they are not prepared to disclose, but yesterday the energy minister tied the natural gas increase to hydro rates at the OEB. For a minister that says the OEB chooses rates on its own, it was interesting he would contradict himself when he left question period.

But let’s have a refresher on Liberal energy policy: the billion-dollar gas plant scandal, $20-billion failed green energy plan, exporting energy at a loss of a billion dollars and now Sandra Pupatello’s expensive energy policy. I’d call that—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I quite enjoy the questions I get from my Conservative critic, because there’s usually a diatribe that involves six or eight or 10 issues, which you couldn’t possibly answer in a question. I have to play “What will I answer today, of all the things she indicated?” I’ll get back to her main question.

Sandra Pupatello has served this province and served this government extremely well. She has served in a number of different ministries, including community and social services, economic development and others. She has had the responsibility of managing ministries that have huge budgets. She has been interested, very much so, in service to the public. She has economic experience as Economic Development Commissioner for the city of Windsor. She has also been a senior adviser to KPMG, a business consulting firm. We are proud of that appointment and I really, really think that that’s a—

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

From memory: the Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order; the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry will come to order; and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. I also believe it was the member from Simcoe North.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did, and I’m hearing the member from Halton now. I’ll get you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the minister wants to know why I have so much loaded in my questions, it’s because they have a 10-year record of failure in energy, adding only to the expensive appointment of a Liberal hack, who he wants to repay after she lost the leadership of their party and whom he supported.

We are the only party in this assembly that is committed to reducing hydro bills. We have said we would monetize OPG and Hydro One and make them accountable so it wouldn’t be the Senate for Liberal hacks. We have said we would end the expensive FIT program to the tune of $20 billion a year for 1% of hydro that it’s producing and we said we would deal with the oversupply by creating sensible energy plans. I would stack Tim Hudak’s plan against their plan any day.

Will they have the guts to go to the polls and put those two energy plans in place and let the voters decide on which path they want to take? Sandra Pupatello and Kathleen Wynne’s—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I give the opposition credit for bringing forward white papers on their energy policy. One of their policies is to privatize Ontario’s Power Generation, which they tried to do back around 2002. Here’s what the Toronto Sun said about their initiative, which is in their white paper today: “Instead, it led to the exact opposite” of price reduction. “Rates skyrocketed amid rampant Tory patronage, and the Conservatives, faced with rising public fury, abandoned the scheme, leaving a financial disaster in their wake.” That’s from their paper, the Toronto Sun.

Also, the million-dollar act that they initiated: They will cancel existing contracts and expose the province to $20 billion in claims.

Their policies were a disaster, are a disaster. They don’t deserve to be elected.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, last week, your Minister of Economic Development and Trade rubber-stamped the compulsory certification of carpentry. Basically, he did that without any knowledge of the industry, saying that the decision had already been made. That is in contrast to you and the Ontario College of Trades, who claim that compulsory certification of carpentry is industry-driven.

Minister, is the compulsory certification of carpentry a done deal, and is your government about to rubber-stamp a deal that will cripple the construction industry in Ontario and cost tens of thousands of jobs right here in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. We set up the College of Trades so that these decisions could be made in an evidence-based, rational environment, unlike the party opposite, whose view is that these decisions should be made in backrooms at the Albany Club. That’s the way the decisions were made in the past—not in the future. We respect the skilled trades more than that.

We believe that these decisions ought to be made by people who are involved in the skilled trades, who understand the challenges involved, who understand the impacts on the skilled trades, who understand the impacts on the economy, who understand the impacts on Ontarians. That’s why we set up the College of Trades, Mr. Speaker.

So in answer to the member’s question, of course not. That’s the decision, ultimately. If an application were to come forward, it would go through the proper process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, at least they’re not making the decision in Pat Dillon’s living room.

Minister, the compulsory certification of carpentry is really only supported by one group, and that’s the Carpenters’ Union.

We all know that the membership in the Ontario College of Trades is nothing more than a new trades tax. You know that; the whole province knows that.

The third party, the NDP, clearly do not support any new “taxes, tolls or fees” on the working class. The Labourers’ union, LIUNA, detests the compulsory certification of carpentry. So my question is, are you prepared to cripple the construction industry in Ontario by rubber-stamping the compulsory certification of carpentry, or will you side with the NDP and LIUNA and demand no new taxes and save thousands of jobs right here in our province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It really is time for the member to start levelling with Ontarians and start talking factually about what the College of Trades is about and stop trying to say things that simply aren’t in keeping with the facts. If he’s got a good argument, he can make that argument by factually making that argument, rather than making things up.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the College of Trades is set up to deal with these kinds of issues. These are challenging decisions. They have to be made in a rational environment. They have to be evidence-based. They have to consider impacts on the economy, they have to consider impacts on Ontarians and they have to consider impacts on the skilled trades.

In the past, these decisions were made in government backrooms or not made at all and ignored. We’ve set up a structure now that allows for an evidence-based consideration of these decisions. That, I think, is the way of the future. That respects the skilled trades. That ensures—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Someday, Minister, I’d like to give you a briefing on the trades in Ontario. You might learn from it.

Minister, I understand the wedge you are put in here.

The Ontario College of Trades is nothing more than a new trades tax.

Speaker, even today, tens of thousands of hairstylists formed a new association and have joined the Stop the Trades Tax campaign with a new Cut the Salon Tax campaign.

With thousands of apprentices and journeyperson candidates about to be put out of work on April 8, and with your compulsory certification of carpentry about to kill tens of thousands of construction jobs here in Ontario, and with a bunch of cop wannabes harassing the tradespeople of Ontario, and now with a new Cut the Salon Tax, don’t you think it’s about time you actually listened to me and joined with Tim Hudak and the PC caucus and abolished this pathetic College of Trades once and for all?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I listen to the member every time he gets up. The problem is, what he says isn’t in keeping with the facts. So I can listen until the cows come home, but I’m waiting to hear something sensible from the member that’s really going to help us drive forward the skilled trades, help us build stronger skilled trades in this province. If we had listened to the member opposite when it comes to ratios between apprentices and journeypersons, we would have ended up exactly where we were under them when they were in government, where they had zero reductions in trade ratios.

Since we’ve been in office, since the College of Trades has been in place, they’ve reduced trade ratios by 14. That’s a pretty significant difference in approaches.

We’re getting things done. We’re doing it in an evidence-based, rational way, allowing tradespeople to have the respect to be able to self-govern their own industry. We have confidence in those decisions. We have confidence they can do the job. It’s too bad that you don’t.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Middle-class families are feeling squeezed like never before, and they’re worried about jobs. They see Ontario’s unemployment rate stubbornly stuck above the national average and paycheques that just don’t keep up with the cost of living. Does the Acting Premier think that the status quo is actually acceptable?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can say is that there is no party in this House that has a monopoly on caring for people who are struggling every day to pay their bills. On this side of the House, we have taken action to reduce costs for people who are in that middle class. Some of those examples would be the work we’re doing to reduce auto insurance. We’ve reduced that by 4.66% on average since August of last year. We’ve expanded the 30% off tuition grant, so 230,000 students received that grant last year, and we’ve now expanded access to five-year programs and private career colleges.

One of the most important things we can do is secure a retirement security. We are very committed to doing that, and the party opposite is silent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before people can retire, they need a job. People struggling to find work are very tired of hearing Liberals insist that their plan is working. The government insists that the HST and corporate tax giveaways would create jobs, but people keep seeing local plants close. The government insists they can work with employers to bring investments, but businesses like Cliffs Resources and Chrysler are walking away from the table. The Premier insists that she’s the change, so why does the government keep sticking to the same old status quo?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are anything but sticking to the status quo, and I would ask the leader of the third party to actually come clean with the people of Ontario on what exactly their plan is. When it comes to pension security, they have no plans. They remain silent on that issue. When it comes to energy, they voiced opposition to high rates, but they have no plan to bring those rates down. When it comes to transit, which our middle-class families depend on, you have absolutely no plan, or you have a multitude of positions. So I really think it’s important that the leader of the third party actually come clean with the people of Ontario and express what their plan is.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think they know our plans very, very well, because they keep implementing them. People want a better future, but we won’t get there with the same old approaches. People want to see competitive electricity rates to help attract business. Instead, they see the same bloated system that pays millions to executives and dumps discounted electricity into competing jurisdictions. They want to see tax incentives that reward businesses putting people back to work. Instead, they see tax loopholes that help CEOs write off a night on the town.

The Premier says she wants to do things differently, but all she’s offered to do is promise to raise gas taxes and the HST and then frantically scramble in the other direction. Do the Liberals really think this is good enough for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You don’t have to take it from me. The facts are, the NDP is nowhere on important issues. Let me quote from the Toronto Star, February 16: “Horwath has done everything possible to avoid having policies on tough issues that require political bravery.”

On March 15, 2014: “Ontario NDP Losing Its Voice on Minimum Wage.”

The Globe and Mail says, “But there’s no denying Ms. Horwath has taken the accent off the NDP’s traditional focus on anti-poverty....”

“And what about Horwath’s response to Wynne’s push for a made-in-Ontario pension plan? Silence,” from the Toronto Star on February 16.

I think it’s time that the NDP said where they stand.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Acting Premier as well. No-strings-attached giveaways have handed out a lot of money, but there’s not much evidence that they’ve created many jobs. In fact, most of that money has been stockpiled. It’s clear that we need a better approach in this province.

Unconquered Sun, a manufacturer in Windsor, told us, “The NDP plan for a new job creation tax credit is a smart, simple idea that will help me grow.” Are the Liberals ready to try a new approach that will give a boost to companies that are ready to put people to work?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me just share some good examples, and I know the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment will want to speak.

Cisco Systems is adding 1,700 high-tech jobs over six years, with the potential for 5,000 jobs, and we’re investing $190 million over six years to leverage $4 billion. I call that a success.

Ford Oakville, Speaker: We’re partnering with the federal government and Ford of Canada to upgrade the Oakville assembly plant. That’s securing 2,800 jobs.

Toyota in Cambridge, 400 new jobs; Original Foods in Dunnville, 150 new jobs; Conestoga Meat Packers in Breslau, 425 existing jobs retained, 100 new jobs; CenterLine in Windsor, 482 jobs; and the list goes—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Sutherland’s Furniture is a London, Ontario, success story, and they want to grow. Vivianne Dupuis of Sutherland’s Furniture told us that they’ve been thinking about whether they can afford new hires, and this is exactly the sort of incentive that would help them make that decision in uncertain times. She says a job creator tax credit will “assist small businesses in growing their operation and, in turn, growing the local economy.”

What does the government have to say to Vivianne and business people like her?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know this idea of a job creators tax credit has been around with the NDP for a long, long time. I know they were initially thinking of a 20% credit to the employer, and then it went down to 10%. I have no doubt it may actually end up being 0% in the not-too-distant future.

This is part of the reason I wish they had actually read the report of the Jobs and Prosperity Council, which was chaired, of course, by the esteemed Gord Nixon, the president and CEO of RBC.

Here they are. Here’s the Jobs and Prosperity Council report saying that for the proposed tax credit, the NDP tax credit—the JPC indicated that a number of considerations “need to be taken into account in coming to a balanced view of its merits and risks.... Taken together, these considerations suggest that the proposed tax credit entails significant fiscal risks and may not achieve the desired” outcome.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here we have the minister once again relying on the same old status quo, on a panel report that doesn’t even talk about jobs at all. That’s the problem, Speaker. That is exactly the problem. The Liberal status quo has kept Ontario’s unemployment rate stubbornly above the national average, and that is not good enough.

Thalmic Labs is a venture-capital-funded start-up in the Communitech Hub in Kitchener–Waterloo. Stephen Lake, Thalmic Labs’ CEO, had this to say about a job creator tax credit: “An incentive like the one being proposed would be helpful for companies like us as we continue to build out our teams.”

Now, are the Liberals going to stand by their same old status quo that they continue to flout as I ask these questions, or are they going to listen to businesses like the ones I’ve quoted today, that are ready to actually start creating jobs in our province?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Speaker, frankly, I can’t believe that in a single sentence, the leader of the third party has tried to discredit the entire work of the Jobs and Prosperity Council, representing the business leadership right across this province and chaired by Gord Nixon, who was at that time the president and CEO of RBC. I find that, frankly, quite unbelievable.

She references Communitech as well. Communitech is a job creator. It has created probably as many as 10,000 jobs, with government support, over the last number of years, and the examples that she gives—and it’s not just the Jobs and Prosperity Council. The evidence shows—

Interjections.

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

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. In yesterday’s Focus on Finance presentation, we had an insider’s look into the secret workings of the Liberal Party.

Last year, when your finance officials told you one thing, you immediately went out and told the bond-rating agencies something completely opposite. We also saw that you blacked out many emails, labelling them “commercially sensitive information.”

Let’s take a look at what you were covering over: “No funding for incremental compensation increases for new collective agreements; salaries for designated groups frozen until 2017-18.” Minister, you voted against our across-the-board wage freeze when you were secretly planning to do the same thing. What else are you hiding?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the audacity of the members opposite to suggest that we’re hiding anything, when that is the party that hid $5.6 billion in the election before 2003. And now they’re referencing information that we delivered to the committee, recognizing that, yes, there are recommendations that are proposed and provided. We take them into consideration. Things change, revenues change; we recalibrate. We control our spending to offset them, and we’ve been very open and transparent, because we put it in our fall economic statement six months later. The facts are there. They never read it until today. They’re pretty slow, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We’ve also discovered part of your plan is not to report any real numbers for as long as you can. With today’s Fraser Institute report showing Ontario’s debt situation is now actually much worse than California’s, we now understand why. It also explains why, last October, you failed to disclose the long-range assessment as required by the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act.

When I asked you for this in the Legislature, you said, “We have a fall economic statement coming out shortly,” but guess what, Minister? There were no medium-term outlook numbers included in it. Not even your famous “recalibrated” numbers were in that report. The transparency act also states that third-quarter results must be published by February 15, something you also failed to provide this year.

Minister, again I ask you: What else are you hiding?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, here’s a good quote: “[T]he provincial budget has been balanced for the past four years, with a fifth to come.” That was said by Tim Hudak when they showed a deficit.

This is not the case. We have been open and transparent. We will continue to do what’s necessary. We have always been outlining—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. As soon as I sit down, I’ll get right back up again if someone starts.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’ll continue to be open and transparent. We brought in laws to do just that. We are the ones who are coming out with our long-range plan. We’ve already identified that it will be coming forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from Oxford and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Obviously, they don’t want to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker, because this is what they said.

The former Provincial Auditor said this: “[T]he Tories, in their zeal to make the budget balance”—as required by Ontario law—“manipulated figures to ensure revenue appeared to match expenditures. ” That was done in 2003.

We will continue to do what’s right.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Acting Premier: Late last week, we learned that Enbridge and Union Gas have applied for increases that in one fell swoop will increase the prices we pay for gas used to power our furnaces and hot water heaters by up to 40%. Now we learn that the Minister of Energy is musing about electricity prices going up more than 42%, indicated in the government’s long-term energy plan, because of high natural gas prices.

Is this government resigned to hard-pressed Ontarians paying electricity price increases that they just can’t afford?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ll talk about the gas prices in my response, and then I’ll talk about electricity prices in the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there is no flow-through of profit or margin on commodity cost of natural gas. There is a North American problem with escalating prices in natural gas and the gas companies flow that through.

They will go to the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board, which is mandated to protect the interests of consumers, will see what the prices were and what they did with those prices. They will make a decision. The increases that they apply for at the Ontario Energy Board are distribution costs, which they get locally. There’s no profit to the actual gas companies on the increase.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll finish that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, Ontarians want a government that speaks for them, not for the gas companies. You’ve got to understand that.

People understand that this was a cold winter, but winter is pretty much over and most of the gas used by gas plants is purchased under long-term contracts. Last week, in anticipation of warmer weather and a pickup in drilling, North American gas prices began to decline.

Will the government ensure that any application to increase electricity prices by gas generators is reviewed in a way that’s transparent, or is it resigned to ever-increasing hydro prices for hard-pressed Ontarians?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The issue is before the Ontario Energy Board, and as everyone in this chamber knows, that is an independent association. They look at the evidence. There’s the opportunity for consumer advocates and stakeholders to make representations. They deal with it in an open and transparent manner; that’s the way they deal with business. We cannot tell them what to do.

With respect to electricity prices, as I indicated last week in the House, Hydro-Québec does a comparative study every year of all the provinces and cities across the country. Here’s what they report for 2013: The price for electricity in Ottawa, 12.39 cents per kilowatt hour; Toronto, 12.48 cents; quickly, Edmonton, 13.9; Calgary, 14.8; Halifax, 15.45. We are competitive and we’re going to stay competitive.

HOME CARE

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As we look to the future, I believe most members in this House would prefer that we all have the chance to age with dignity in our own homes and with the supports that we need to keep all of us out of institutional care for as long as possible. I’m sure that every single one of us has an elderly loved one who has needed help in the tasks of daily living that we all tend to take for granted.

That’s why I was alarmed, along with many families and seniors in Vaughan and across York region, to recently hear the opposition Conservative member from Newmarket–Aurora say that high-risk seniors across York region are having their essential assisted living services cut.

Speaker, I’m wondering if the minister could please tell the House what is really happening in York region.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member from Vaughan for giving me the opportunity to clear the air on this matter and bring some comfort to the people of York region, who may have been led to believe that they will see a reduction in these vital supports.

As part of our action plan for health care, we are committed to ensuring that seniors get the right care at the right time and in the right place, and very often that is at home. So contrary to what the member from Newmarket–Aurora claims, our new assisted living for high-risk seniors policy will improve assisted living services for seniors who need them most and allow more seniors to get the care they need.

Under the old model, assisted living services were provided only in supportive housing buildings, so many clients did not have access to the 24/7 care that they needed, and unscheduled urgent visits. Now patients will be able to receive in-home personal support, homemaking, security checks and care coordination, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, wherever they live.

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

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for her thoughtful response, and I thank her for providing important clarity with respect to what’s really taking place. I’m sure many people living in my riding of Vaughan and across York region will be relieved to know that their assisted living services are not being cut. They’ll be delighted to know that, in fact, they’re being expanded.

However, I am sure that there will still be many seniors in the region who are concerned about the transition to this new model. Some may be worried that these reforms will disrupt the care that they’re already receiving.

Can the minister please inform the House what will happen to patients as this new policy is implemented?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Every patient currently receiving assisted living services will continue to do so under this new model. There will be no reduction in service, and with a $5 million additional investment from the Central LHIN, there will be 625 additional assisted living spaces in the community. That means more seniors will receive the care they need to maintain their independence at home.

Providers are now working together to ensure continuity of care for all current assisted living seniors with high needs, and they’re working with patients who are being transitioned to a new provider. For example, care supervisors from CHATS are meeting with York region’s Alternative Community Living Program to best understand how to support each individual. So far, 80% of those one-on-one meetings have been completed, and we will continue to work with the LHINs to make sure people get the care they need in their own home.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan Am Games. Oops, you did it again, Minister. Last Friday you told us with conviction that the total transportation costs were between $75 million and $90 million, yet yesterday in committee, TO2015 confirmed there’s a second transportation plan nobody knew about worth $32 million.

You’ve said that you’re in charge of the games, but you can’t be aware of all the details. Maybe you’re unaware of the details because you don’t attend your own technical briefings.

Minister, you’re clearly not interested in being responsible for the Pan Am Games. Will you step down finally?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, one more day, one more insult to the games. Back a few years ago, when Ontario bid for the games, one of the big requirements was the transportation of the athletes and family members. This is the responsibility of TO2015. The cost was allocated from the beginning. The cost is within the overall budget of $1.441 billion. Our recent forecast decreased that amount in a saving of $49 million.

Speaker, as host jurisdiction, Ontario is responsible for the traffic flow in general. We have a comprehensive transportation plan. It is workable. It is achievable. Vancouver did it. London did it—

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: Speaker, the biggest insult to these games is the fact that this government continues to play shell games with the numbers here. To be perfectly clear, the total transportation costs to date are between $107 million and $122 million, despite what you say, Minister. This is up from $55 million—I don’t know, who’s counting? I am, by the way. It was the organizing committee’s CEO, on the job for only 10 weeks, who shed light on your transportation planning.

What have you been doing all this time, Minister, if you can’t be open and transparent? How can you be responsible? You’ve lost the confidence of the public to lead this portfolio, and you report to someone without a public mandate. Minister, I’m hard pressed to find anyone who knows less about the games than you do.

Will you remedy this finally and step down and let someone do it who can handle the job?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, the member opposite is completely out of touch with the games. In November last year, he actually asked when the last Pan Am Games were held. He complained the cost of the games was too high; at the same time, he said we were not spending enough on transportation and security. Most recently, he alleged that the TO2015 mascot was in Sochi and the Caribbean by looking at a picture of a six-inch stuffed animal toy.

Speaker, this is nonsense. The nonsense continues to hurt the games that are coming to Ontario. This nonsense hurts our athletes. This nonsense hurts our coaches. This nonsense hurts the spirit of the games.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The question is to the Minister of Transportation. Over 100 long days ago, I asked the government for crucial information about the most expensive transit projects under way. Earlier today, for the sixth time in a row, the government members in committee blocked this simple request. This Liberal government has an awful record on accountability, and they’re doing nothing to fix it. They think it’s okay to keep Ontarians in the dark about how public money is spent.

My question to the minister is this: What on earth is he afraid that we’re going to find that will hurt him or his ministry?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the third party. This is a party that wants working women in Brampton who cannot get transit to get their kids to Sheridan to have to have an $11,000 car because they won’t support transit. These are people who are happy having people in Scarborough wait 40 minutes for a bus to get to work in the morning. These are people who take working families and marginal workers who work in office buildings downtown and don’t provide them with transit.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is not the party of the middle class. This is the party of the indifferent and the elite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case he didn’t hear me, or while he was heckling didn’t hear me, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, when does this party care as much about people who ride buses as the insurance rates on people who drive BMWs? This is—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, all I have to say is that all that blah blah blah was not very helpful. We know that Ontarians want transit expansion, but they don’t want to see more waste and cost overruns. We know that.

The people of Ontario have a right to see the true cost of transit projects, yet the Liberals are blocking the way. They have been stalling these motions for months. They’ve been refusing to be transparent and accountable to Ontarians.

Speaker, my question to the minister is this: Will he say to his MPP colleagues, “Stop the stonewalling in committee,” and tell his ministry to release all the documents that the committee needs to see?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I don’t know; I’ve been suspicious that the people in the third party have gotten so close to the party opposite that they’re starting to behave like them: anti-transit.

The other habit they’ve taken that the Tories have is that they don’t read budgets. The business plan for all 15 rapid transit projects and the funding models are all click, click on the website. Anything that he wants, he can find out from Metrolinx, and it’s appeared.

I cannot help the third party’s transit illiteracy. I understand that they don’t understand that some people actually use buses and that, for middle-class families, the cost of transit is actually crushing them. While they love to talk about energy, in fact, transportation is the second-biggest household cost after food. But he doesn’t care about that, and he wants to attack transit, not only not fund it, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he can read a report—

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

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Ontario is home to one of the largest financial sectors in North America, and Toronto has, in recent years, been declared one of the top destinations for foreign direct investment. Regulations for the financial sector are an important part of what has kept Ontario and Canada strong during recent years, in particular with the recession south of the border.

Can the minister please inform the House about the regulation of Ontario’s capital markets and the contributions of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for this very important question. Ontario has a strong and successful financial sector, and it secures our prosperity and our economy. Recent studies from the Conference Board of Canada and the Toronto Financial Services Alliance note that one in 13 Ontarians are directly employed by this sector and help grow Ontario’s economy for many other sectors.

Smart regulations are an essential element of our government’s approach to supporting the sector, as evidenced by our continued commitment to a dynamic and innovative business climate. The Ontario Securities Commission plays an essential role in regulating and safeguarding capital markets. They help protect investors from unfair or improper practices. They foster fair and efficient capital markets and confidence in Ontario. The OSC is a success story and an example to the world of how to effectively regulate capital markets to secure prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for that important update. My constituents agree that Ontario needs strong, smart regulation for capital markets. We are pleased to see the OSC’s efforts to protect investors and combat fraud.

I had the opportunity to attend a fraud prevention event on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Services in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, and I can tell you this is a real concern for my constituents. They also feel that the OSC must take a grassroots approach to promote financial literacy and combat fraud in our communities. Can the minister please update the House as to the OSC’s work in local communities in this regard?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member is absolutely right: The OSC must work at the local level to combat fraud and offer educational initiatives for all Ontarians. That’s why in February 2013, the OSC launched the OSC in the Community initiative with its Protect Your Money fraud prevention seminars. The OSC is touring cities across Ontario, educating investors on fraud prevention and financial literacy and raising the profile and understanding of the OSC as a whole. Thus far, the OSC has visited Thunder Bay, Kingston, London, Sault Ste.

Marie, Sudbury, Peterborough, Brampton, Windsor, Ottawa and Barrie, with plans to visit four additional cities this winter. The OSC will be reaching out to all MPPs before they visit your community. These initiatives build relationships with local community groups, law enforcement agencies and small businesses. They help to enhance education and financial literacy, and they combat fraud at all levels.

I thank the OSC for their leadership in this regard and look forward to their new and innovative initiatives. I’d like to thank the chair, Howard Wetston, and his entire team for their tireless efforts in this regard.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Yesterday, in refusing to stop the closures of the Kemptville and Alfred colleges, the Premier repeatedly said that the programs would continue.

Minister, you know that’s not true. All the programs aren’t moving several hundred kilometres away. Many of them will be disappearing. So the Premier, as Minister of Agriculture, really doesn’t understand, or she doesn’t care.

North America’s leading organic dairy education and research centre in Alfred is disappearing, and so are hundreds of skilled trades positions at Kemptville college. Those positions are needed in the skilled trades.

Minister, can’t you see that without a moratorium, you’re going to destroy a tradition of post-secondary agricultural education that took almost a century to have?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I recognize the member is an opposition member, and I recognize that it’s really easy for opposition members just to ask for anything and take the easy way out. But I really encourage the member to use as an example the work that the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell has done to ensure that the Alfred campus remains working, remains open, that there’s continuity there and that those students will be able to continue to take those courses.

He did that, Mr. Speaker, by working really hard to attract local partners. La Cité and Collège Boréal are going to step in. They have signed an agreement with Guelph university. That’s good news. It’s an example of how the local member can make a real difference.

I encourage the member opposite. We are looking very forward. We will work with him. My colleague will work with him to try to find local solutions to do the same thing at Kemptville.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: Come on, Minister. The only credible plan for these colleges is to have a moratorium. That’s the only way forward. Right now, students at both Kemptville and Alfred are receiving letters telling them to reapply to Ridgetown. We’re hearing from students in the Kemptville area who won’t continue with their studies next year. They’re going to drop out. One mom said that her son, who planned to enrol in Kemptville in the fall, is not going to take any other post-secondary position anywhere else. That’s what happens when you destroy local agricultural education opportunities.

You’re the minister responsible. Can you stand up and assure Ontario that we’re going to have the same amount of spaces available for post-secondary agricultural educational programs if you decide to proceed with this plan? Can you tell me that?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Before the minister starts, I want to remind members that when the member was putting the question, I was still hearing heckling from this side, and I heard quiet. I admonished anyone that got in the way of somebody putting the question. I expect the same courtesy when the answer is being given.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: There is quiet on this side when he’s asking that question because it’s an important and very valid question. It’s something we care deeply about. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, I think, has stood out in this particular situation by reaching out to partners in the local community and ensuring that the people that have to be first on our minds on this—our students—are being looked after at that particular campus. We would like to see a similar solution arrived at for Kemptville. We’ll work hard with that member opposite.

We’ll work hard with the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to see if a local partner can be identified that can continue those courses, but let’s be clear. Let’s ensure there’s no confusion for those students. Those courses are moving to the Ridgetown campus. Those courses are not being cancelled; they’re moving to another location. In Alfred, courses will continue, although students will have the option of staying there or moving.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. The member from Oxford will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I remembered.

New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. It has been two years since the Liberal government announced the sell-off of the Ontario Northland, jeopardizing 1,000 families directly and many others indirectly, a decision made without consultation or any research and, we later found out, one that was going to cost the government over $800 million. Northerners united and forced the government to backtrack. Finally, the government has allowed management and the employees to put together a plan and present it—a plan that could revitalize the ONTC. My question is very simple: Will you act on that plan?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I very much appreciate the question. I know what an important issue this is for one in northeastern Ontario. Certainly, we are very, very proud of the fact that we were able to work with people in northeastern Ontario, setting up a ministerial advisory committee that has been meeting for the last year as we look at a different approach to the ONTC, a transformational one that really is as much about restructuring alternative service delivery as others. We are very grateful to have had a report submitted by the management and unions together.

That was presented to our ministerial advisory committee a couple of weeks ago. We are looking at it very, very seriously. Again, I’m very grateful for the hard work that has gone into that. This is an extremely important decision. We’re conscious of the uncertainty that has been there. I made that clear at our last meeting: that indeed I appreciate all the good work that has been done, and we’re looking forward to being able to make some decisions soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: The minister made a good point: It is causing uncertainty. It has caused uncertainty in the north for two years, and now we’re worried, at this final juncture, that the government might try to sell off part of the ONTC at this late date just to save face. That would scuttle the plan that was put forward by northerners to revitalize the company. We need a commitment that the ministry, the minister and the Premier are truly going to commit to revitalize the ONTC and not try any fast moves to try to save face at this late juncture.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I appreciate the question. There certainly are no fast moves that are being made. This has been a really important discussion that we’ve had.

If I can be clear about one thing, the one thing that’s been very, very important to us is that any decisions related to the future of the ONTC really, truly are about finding a way to have a sustainable, long-term operation. That goes for all four divisions of the ONTC.

So we’ve taken a different approach. The member is aware of that. The ministerial advisory committee members, made up of, certainly, municipal leaders, First Nation, Métis nation, business and industry, have been really, really working hard together. The report that came to us, the combined management and union report, is one that we’re looking at very, very seriously.

But I can assure you that the bottom line really is that we’re going to make decisions that are based on a long-term, sustainable future for the ONTC and, may I say, a bright future for the ONTC.

CO-OP EDUCATION

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Experiential learning is an important component of post-secondary education for many students across the province. The chance to gain valuable on-the-job experience in their field of choice is what many students need to succeed.

Spaces across post-secondary institutions in the province are limited and some co-op students struggle to find placements during their terms. Mr. Speaker, in honour of National Co-operative Education Week, can the minister please explain what the government is doing to support co-operative education in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question and for bringing to the attention of this Legislature the importance of co-op education. It is absolutely a crucial direction that we have to continue to excel in, and our province and our institutions have been among the best in the world at it.

Experiential learning is integral to supporting the skills and knowledge that our students need to succeed in a fiercely competitive global economy. We want to do everything we can to support the 40,000 co-op students at our post-secondary institutions across the province. Through our co-op diploma apprenticeship programs, students get on-the-job apprenticeship training while earning a college degree.

We also support our businesses. To help make it easier for employers to hire co-op students, our government offers up to $3,000 through the Ontario Co-operative Education Tax Credit.

Mr. Speaker, these are incredibly important programs. There are many more. This is the direction we have to continue to go in. We’re good at this, but I think we still need to do more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: It’s good to know we are creating more opportunities for experiential learning by providing support for both students and employers.

Working together, we can make sure that our children have the skills and tools they need to be successful in Ontario’s growing workforce, but we must go even further to ensure the success of our students.

As the minister is aware, many co-op programs require students to spend an extra year at their post-secondary institution. This means another year of tuition fees and even more student debt to pay off once they graduate.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is our government doing to help relieve the extra cost burden for stu