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

November 5, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-05 (PDF)

L118 - Thu 5 Nov 2015 / Jeu 5 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 5 November 2015 Jeudi 5 novembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Remembrance Day / Jour du Souvenir

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Ring of Fire

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Ring of Fire

Injured workers

Changement climatique / Climate change

Layoffs

Public transit

Privatization of public assets

Ring of Fire

Homelessness

Municipalities

Palliative care

Transportation infrastructure

Visitor

Legislative pages

John Robert Gallagher

Visitors

Members’ birthdays

Deferred Votes

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Polish Independence Day

Labour dispute

Ontario Food Terminal

Diwali

The Sounds of Christmas

Justice Ryan

Remembrance Day

Community Living Burlington

Women’s representation in Parliament / Représentation des femmes au Parlement

Introduction of Bills

Family Caregiver Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les aidants naturels

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Adoption Awareness Month / Mois de la sensibilisation à l’adoption

Soldiers’ Aid Commission

Adoption Awareness Month

Soldiers’ Aid Commission

Adoption Awareness Month

Soldiers’ Aid Commission

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Diagnostic services

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Gasoline prices

Lung health

Ontario College of Trades

Financement des hôpitaux

Private Members’ Public Business

Estate Administration Tax Abolition Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 abolissant l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act (Parole), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels (libérations conditionnelles)

Growing Ontario’s Craft Cider Industry Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la croissance de l’industrie du cidre artisanal de l’Ontario

Estate Administration Tax Abolition Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 abolissant l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act (Parole), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels (libérations conditionnelles)

Growing Ontario’s Craft Cider Industry Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la croissance de l’industrie du cidre artisanal de l’Ontario

Estate Administration Tax Abolition Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 abolissant l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à modifier la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I am pleased, today, to share my time with the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member for Huron–Bruce, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Bill 122, of course, is the Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act. I must say I was quite intrigued when this act first was proposed. I thought that there was an opportunity here because, as many members know, I sat on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Speaker, I believe you were the Chair of that particular committee.

A select committee is rather unique in its makeup in that every recommendation that comes forward is approved, endorsed and agreed upon by all three parties in the House. We did that with the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. We, in fact, spent 18 months doing that. It was a long journey, as you can imagine, because with mental health issues it is not particularly easy for presenters to share their stories and explain how they have been treated or, in many cases, mistreated as a result of their mental health illness.

I was very much looking forward to seeing what was in Bill 122. I have to say, I really believe there is a missed opportunity here. Bill 122—and I did go to the ministerial briefing, so I know from what I speak; this is not from reading some two-page bill

summary—is very specifically related to fixing one issue. I get that. I understand it. When the court imposes deadlines and makes recommendations, as legislators we must react to that. I understand that. However, we are opening up the Mental Health Act, and there were some very specific recommendations from the all-party committee that I think we should have been bringing forward with Bill 122.

Now, having said that, there is an opportunity for everyone to fix their mistakes, because when Bill 122 gets referred to committee, if we have unanimous consent, we can bring forward some of the amendments and some of the recommendations that are in this select committee report. I would urge government members who sit on whatever committee Bill 122 ultimately gets referred to, that they seriously consider that. Again, I’m going to spend most of my time referring to the recommendations, all-party supported, that were given as a result of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions.

There were a number of recommendations related to justice issues, courts and corrections. One of the things the select committee found out very quickly was that services for court mental health workers—these are some of the recommendations we brought forward and that I would like to see incorporated into Bill 122. Even though I understand this is to solve a very particular fix—I get it—we all understand that there are very few opportunities for us to add to and amend certain legislation. We have that opportunity with Bill 122 right now. I would hate to see after—this report is almost five years old—that we don’t take the opportunity to move forward.

Specifically related to justice and the court system, the select committee recommended: “The services of court mental health workers should be made widely available across all regions of Ontario, in order to divert more individuals with a mental illness or addiction out of the justice system and into appropriate mental health and addictions services and supports.”

If you go back to what is the nub of the issue with Bill 122, this recommendation works very well, because it’s all about incarcerated individuals who have mental illness and their access to service.

The second recommendation: “Additional mental health, drug treatment, and youth mental health courts should be created across all regions of Ontario, to provide more appropriate services for individuals with a mental illness or addiction.”

Again, Bill 122 is a result of a court order and a court issue related to an individual who is incarcerated, who is in an institution and isn’t getting the services they need. So this recommendation does fit very nicely with Bill 122.

“The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should direct police forces across the province to provide training for officers who may encounter people suffering from mental illnesses and addictions.” I don’t think we have to look too far in the news to see the value of what that recommendation could and would do.

Probably the most important recommendation that we keep coming back to with this select committee: “The core basket of mental health and addictions services should be available to the incarcerated population, and discharge plans for individuals with a mental illness or addiction should be expanded to include the services of a system navigator and appropriate community services.”

I get that this comes because you have to do something. The court has imposed a deadline; I believe it’s December 23. But we have an opportunity, with those very specific four recommendations, that I believe would actually improve Bill 122 and that are a very appropriate match for what you are trying to accomplish.

Instead of just opening up the legislation and fixing a very specific part of it because you were forced to through litigation, why don’t you actually look at the bigger picture and say, “We actually have some half-decent research that is a result of 18 months of study, 18 months of deputations from court officers, from people with lived experiences, from family members who were part of this discussion”? You could improve what you have already started with Bill 122. As I have said before, I truly believe this is a missed opportunity.

Sometimes we forget that some of the hard work and some of the research have already been done, and I believe that has been done with this report. There are members of cabinet who were on this committee and who know very well what this could mean to the lives and families of individuals who have mental health illnesses. I urge the members of the committee that ultimately will be sitting and reviewing Bill 122, when it gets to committee, that they allow for unanimous consent so that we can go further than what a very limited Bill 122 is offering us right now today.

I have no qualms with what is being suggested in Bill 122. I just think we could do a lot more when we have the opportunity and when the legislation is open, which is what is afforded to us right now. I will leave it at that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to put on the record that this whole issue in regard to how we deal with our mental health system is something that I think touches many people in this Legislature, as it touches many other lives across this province.

My sister was schizophrenic and dealt with the system for years and years, when it came to making sure she was safe. I’ve got to tell you, having a family that was supportive and a system that was engaged with my sister allowed her to live safely through her entire bout of schizophrenia, which started at about age 20. Unfortunately, she died when she was 60 of breast cancer, but it wasn’t the schizophrenia that got her in the end.

I have to say that it is so, so important that we, first of all, identify what the issues are with the individual so that we can try to at least marshal the types of support that that person needs in order to be able to survive. My sister, in the case of the Canadian Mental Health Association in Timmins, was very well supported by the workers there and by the ACT team, and where the family was not able to provide certain services, they were able to be there and help my sister through a lot of what she had to go through. She ended up living a very productive life.

Louise lived on her own in her own apartment for the last five or six years of her life. She was able to manage things quite effectively. We had to put some supports around her in order to make sure she was able to function, but once that was in place, it worked fairly well. The CCAC came in and provided her some basic support that she needed in order to be able to function. The Canadian Mental Health Association was there, and myself, as the only living relative left in Timmins for the last five years of her life, was there, along with my wife and daughter, to assist where we could.

The real point here is that it’s not just the system that has to respond; families also have to respond and be there for their loved ones.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s a pleasure for me this morning to stand in my place here and represent the people of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. I’d like to thank the member from Dufferin–Caledon for her remarks, as well as the member from Timmins–James Bay. The member from Timmins–James Bay made some great points. There’s no family, I don’t think, in the province of Ontario that hasn’t been affected by someone whom we love who has been affected by a mental health issue or an addiction.

That’s why we as a government, when we took office in 2003, saw it as a priority. Since that time, we’ve invested close to a total of a billion dollars now in mental health and addictions strategies and services. We plan to continue our investments and increase funding by $220 million over the next three years. That’s our commitment as a government in recognizing the impact that it does have on our communities and the economy of the province of Ontario.

Due to our investments, there are more than 55,000 additional children and youth now receiving the care that they need. Also, we have invested over $11 million to place 144 mental health nurses in our schools. That’s important, Mr. Speaker, because it’s important that we provide those supports early on in one’s life to give them a good, fresh start in contributing to the great province of Ontario.

We have more than 770 mental health workers serving in communities, schools and in court, and more than $2 million in funding supporting training and professional development for aboriginal mental health and addictions workers that serve our aboriginal youth and children. We’ve created 19 new specialized nurse practitioners specializing in eating disorders, who now help close to 500 children.

There are many more that I could talk about, the investments we made, but I look forward to this getting to committee so that we can have some more debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to acknowledge my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon. She always is extremely well-prepared, on this item, in particular. I know she has done a great, great job on the mental health select committee, which our former colleague Christine Elliott also was very involved in. To all members—it was an all-party committee, and I think they did great work.

What I’ve really heard throughout this debate is how far we have come. That’s a great thing. There used to be a lot of stigma associated, and sadly, in some cases there still is, but we’ve come a long way, where people are willing to actually acknowledge that they are having some challenges. I think it’s equally important for other people to step up and be prepared to be there for other people.

In my great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, we have a resource that, sadly, has come about as a result of a young man, Wes Cameron, taking his own life. His mother, Yolanda, and father, Jamie, have come out and established Wes for Youth Online. That’s a resource that, certainly, is wonderful in our own backyard, but with the advent, of course, of electronic technology, it’s available to anyone across the world that can actually utilize that.

Keystone children services is wonderful, and the Canadian Mental Health Association, again, has great services. We’ve just had some more money made available so that we have 24/7 access, which is great, but I think we can’t stop there. We can’t rest, because I believe—and I believe my colleague, Mr. Yurek, from Elgin–Middlesex–London, phrased it in the way that mental health has to be treated the same as physical health problems. We put a lot of emphasis on physical health and the resources into it, but mental health is equally as challenging, in some cases, maybe more. I think we need to ensure that that has equal treatment.

For this year’s World Mental Health Day, I think the theme really was focused on dignity in mental health and, again, ensuring that we have the resources and the services there for people when they need them.

I would like to just reach out to everyone who’s either listening or watching at home—and all of us can play a role. We can be watching and always just have our ears ready, to open our door for someone who is having challenges and find help—along with them, I’ll do my part.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to congratulate the member from Dufferin–Caledon for her remarks. She and I served on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Five years later, there has been very, very little done—one half of a recommendation that has been acted upon.

This bill is so, so narrow. It only came here because the court forced us to deal with this. But there is such a pent-up demand to make changes to the Mental Health Act. You can see it by the broad views that are brought forward by the members of this House. Sadly, Speaker, we will be the only ones who will get to talk about mental health, and for a very limited amount of minutes will we be allowed to do this. Shame on all of us.

The people out there are ready to talk about mental health. They are ready to effect change about mental health. They know that the bill that we have now, the Mental Health Act, does not serve us in 2015 anymore. It was the best we could do 20 years ago, but in 20 years, everything has changed: stigma, treatment, the way that we support people with mental illness. Everything has changed.

Within this bill that is so, so narrow, there are some huge flaws. It cannot go through the way it is. Although it will meet, on paper, what the court has told us had to be done, on the ground, for the people who offer that care, the support is not there. The facilities have not been built. The clinical areas do not exist—a real shame. Those people deserve to have treatment. If they’re going to be held, on form, they should have access to treatment. This is not the case, not because of the law, but because of a lack of resources dedicated to mental illness.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the comments. I very much appreciate it.

I will go back to where I started. There were nine members on that select committee. I’m not going to name names because I’ve never been very good at matching the person with the riding, but four of those members of the nine-member committee are now in cabinet. We have an opportunity here. If we get unanimous consent at committee, we can incorporate some of the—again, I will say—all-party recommendations that are included in the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions’ report. So allow us that opportunity, because, to my colleague’s point, we’re not going to have a fulsome debate here in this chamber.

We need to get that opportunity to add, to expand, to improve Bill 122 when it gets to committee.

I spoke about four recommendations. There are actually another four that, again, directly relate to courts and the justice system. This is not a new issue. We were talking about this. We were bringing forward recommendations five years ago because we saw the challenges then. To fix one very specific, narrow part as a result of a court order and ignore the work that happened in the select committee I think is a terrible injustice to the people who presented, and, quite frankly, I think it’s a missed opportunity.

We have that opportunity now, today, with the opening, through Bill 122, of the Mental Health Act, and I would urge members to seriously consider allowing that unanimous consent so that we can go beyond the very narrow scope of what Bill 122 is proposing right now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House to debate important issues like mental health. Each one of us in our own communities and our own families has been touched by mental health issues. Although this bill is a narrow one, it gives us an opportunity to raise awareness about mental health issues, about, still, the lack of resources in the mental health sector, while we’re talking about this particular bill.

While New Democrats certainly agree that it’s necessary to amend the Mental Health Act to comply with the Court of Appeal ruling from December 2014, which ruled that portions of the act violate

section 7 of the charter, we wonder why this is being brought forward only a couple of months before that December deadline. Perhaps it is, as the member from Caledon—

M me France Gélinas: Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —Dufferin–Caledon just spoke about, the fact that this is an opportunity to open up the Mental Health Act that hasn’t been looked at in more than 20 years. Maybe it is the government wanting to be able to stifle any other amendments to the act by bringing it forward at this late date.

The court was also very clear that the government cannot escape its duties under the charter simply by saying that psychiatric hospitals are part of hospital corporations and not run by the provincial government directly. We now know that that isn’t true. The court basically said that for a government that’s intent and keen on privatizing services—the court sent a very clear message: “The province cannot ‘contract out’ of its charter responsibilities by” delegating “statutory powers to a private entity.”

As I said, we’re disappointed that the Liberal government waited nine months to bring this forward. Now we’re racing against the clock, and I’m sure we’ll shortly be having the government say, “We want to time-allocate this bill,” when many of us want to get up and talk about the lack of mental health services in our area and all of the good things that we need to do for clients and patients and their families around the entire mental health issue. The Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions certainly spent I think a couple of years—

M me France Gélinas: It was 18 months.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —18 months working on that, and came up with 20-some recommendations, of which only a half of one recommendation has currently been implemented.

We talked about the ability of perhaps the government allowing us to open up the act entirely and bring forward the recommendations and probably other amendments to the bill. But as we all know, unless that particular

section of

an act is open, the government normally rules us out of order with our amendments.

The plea that I’ve heard from many members here is to open up the entire act, regardless of the

section that this particular bill deals with, and let’s have a fulsome discussion and debate and improve the Mental Health Act for all of those many hundreds of thousands of people who actually suffer with mental health issues in this province.

If the Legislature fails to meet the December 23 deadline, the offending sections would become invalid, and that certainly would or could put public safety at risk for the 330 patients who are currently being held on an indefinite involuntary detention, if they are released. The member from Nickel Belt, when she did her one-hour lead on this issue, talked about many of these patients being the sickest of the sick. Some of them have been held for 20-plus years.

I want to segue into nurses working in mental health facilities, nurses working in hospitals across our province. Just recently—I think it was last Sunday night or Saturday night—Marketplace actually did an exposé on violence in the workplace for nurses across this province. In a five-year period, I believe from 2008 to 2013, 800 nurses in the province of Ontario and 4,000 nurses across Canada have actually been injured in the workplace.

I would hazard a guess that many of these nurses work in psychiatric facilities in our province. We know that there have been nurses murdered in mental health facilities in past years; there have been nurses severely beaten. The problem that came up, though, in this exposé was that although the nurses are reporting these injuries across the province of Ontario and across Canada, and there have been investigations done by the Ministry of Labour, only three charges have been laid in 700 reported incidents.

Nurses are now hesitating to actually report: one, for fear of reprisal, perhaps from their hospitals or employers; and two, because nothing is getting done. How can 700 nurses file complaints with the Ministry of Labour about being assaulted, both verbally and physically, by patients, by families, and the Minister of Labour has only laid three charges? There is something unconscionable about that.

I see a huge pattern here in Ontario and across Canada: Nursing health care is the fourth from the highest of the most dangerous occupations in relation to injuries here in the province of Ontario and across the country. There is something wrong with that because nursing is a caring profession. That’s what nurses do; that’s why nurses go into nursing training, to actually look after patients, and at the end of the day they should be able to go home without being injured in their workplace.

I also wanted to talk, while I have the opportunity, about a psychiatrist who lived in my area for many years and was involved with doing forensic assessments, not only in long-term-care facilities in the province but in our federal prison systems as well. His name is Dr. Thoppil Abraham, and he is now retired back to India. He worked out of the Niagara Health System for many, many years. He was a great community activist.

Even after he retired from the actual hospital system, he volunteered in our community and he volunteered in the Kitchener-Waterloo and London area as well to assist people who were living in poverty and had mental health issues to be able to acquire ODSP or CPP. He would go out to those communities as a volunteer. He didn’t need to do it. But he was so compassionate in his care to people living with mental health issues and all the injustices that they face that he in his retirement years did that. Eventually, about two years ago, he went back to India for a visit and decided that he would retire there.

We are celebrating in my riding our 40th anniversary, and Dr. Abraham will be getting a lifetime achievement award from the NDP riding association in my riding at the end of this month. Unfortunately, he’s not going to be here to be able to accept it.

It’s funny, we talk about the stigma of mental health. During my time working for the Ontario Nurses’ Association and representing nurses who sometimes would have their LTD denied or other benefits denied, I would often have to call upon Thoppil to assist me in providing some medical reports that would assist a nurse to actually get benefits from Great-West Life or Manulife. This is just a little story about that stigma. So I would arrive at his office to actually go and pick up a report.

His waiting room would be bursting at the seams with patients waiting to see him, and they would be shocked to see me, because, of course, they knew me. I had been the mayor of their city; I had been a city councillor. It was like, “What’s she doing here?” On occasion a patient would say, “Cindy, what are you doing here?” I’d say, “Well, I’m here to see my psychiatrist, what do you think I’m doing here?” There still is this stigma about mental health.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to speak about—the member from Nickel Belt, this morning, in her two-minute hit talked about it—the services that aren’t there. Some 40% of the inmates in our provincial jails actually have mental health issues. Many of them are there because of their mental health issue and ended up there when they were arrested at some point in time. There are no programs or services being administered to these inmates.

In fact, when the RNAO was here last year and the year before doing their registered nurses’ lobby day with us—that Shelley Martel, the former member from Nickel Belt, actually assists them with—I had the opportunity to meet with some nurses who actually worked in our provincial corrections system.

They said that it is very distressing for them that there are all of these inmates sitting in our provincial system—I’m sure some in our federal system as well—and they’re not receiving any care, any counselling, any psychotherapy at all, other than their short interaction with the registered nurses of whom there are few. I think it is one nurse to every 130 inmates in the system. You know, prisoners are supposed to be getting rehabilitation while they’re in our corrections system, but that isn’t happening. So that is problematic as well.

I wanted to also talk about the closure of the psychiatric beds in the province. During that time that I was working for the Ontario Nurses’ Association, I was involved in some of those mergers and amalgamations. One that comes to mind was the merger of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and the former Clarke Institute, which is now the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. At that point in time, I think the PCs were in government—correct me if I’m wrong—and a lot of the psychiatric beds across the province were systematically closed.

Unfortunately, the appropriate supports weren’t put in place. So, even today, many of the homeless people that you see in urban areas, particularly, are people with mental health issues. It doesn’t matter whether you are living in a big city—although I think the supports may be better in urban areas than they certainly are in rural areas in the north or in smaller communities like Niagara—the supportive piece just isn’t in place. So many people with mental health issues exist on ODSP, or CPP, if they happened to have a period of working for 10 years in their life.

So these are people who are living on $1,000 a month. They’re supposed to be able to get housing and eat and, somehow, get some psychiatric care.

Now, I can tell you, in the Niagara region, for example, where the Liberal government, actually, has closed half of our hospitals and merged all of our psychiatric beds into one site, it’s very problematic for people. People who are living on the edge with mental health issues sometimes have burned out their families and their friends, so their only friends are their local community hospitals.

I can tell you, having worked at the Welland hospital on and off for 20 years, that many of our psychiatric patients who would be released from the in-patient unit would hang out at the hospital, and we were their only supports and friends. We’d see them in the cafeteria when they would come in for, perhaps, a group session. We would see them at the snack bar, and we’d sit and talk to them. Today we have one psychiatric unit, at the St. Catharines site of the Niagara Health System. We do not have an adequate transportation system in-site in the Niagara region, so it’s very difficult for patients and their families to access the supports that they need.

In my own building, it’s called an open-doors concept, at Canal View Homes. It’s a 70-unit apartment building over some commercial space. It’s where my constituency office is. There are 54 units dedicated to people with mental health situations. When it started out, when it was built 20 years ago, it was a supportive-housing model. They had two support workers in place Monday to Friday, and sometimes on the weekends if they were having special events. They would organize all kinds of—you know, Valentine’s parties, and they would take them out to various festivals that were going on in our community.

But about three years ago, that funding support stopped. For $100,000, all of those activities for 54 tenants in my building stopped. There was one tenant, who still lives there—her name is Mary Jane Huneault, and I’ve talked about her before here in the Legislature—who cycled in and out of psychiatric units for most of her adult life. But for that 20-year period that there were two support workers in place—probably making about $40,000 a year each, with benefits—she never had one admission to the in-patient mental health unit.

Since that supportive money has been removed, eight people have had to leave their units, because they could not function independently without those supports. A number of them have had admissions to the in-patient unit in St. Catharines, where they have no transportation to get them there or for their friends and families to come and meet them.

This whole issue of mental health is not going away. It’s probably a much bigger issue than any physical illnesses that we can talk about. A number of members have talked about the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions that came up with 20-plus recommendations and the need to open up this Mental Health Act to get us there.

I hope that the government is intently listening and that they’ll give all of the parties the opportunity to table amendments, regardless of whether that

section of the bill is open or not. Let’s have a fulsome discussion at the committee level about that.

We know that there are over 400 agencies for adult mental health issues, and I think 300-plus agencies for children and youth with mental health issues. The member from London–Fanshawe brought forward a bill—I can’t remember the number of the bill, a private member’s bill—about a month ago, or two months ago.

It talked about the government developing oversight for mental health issues, so that we make sure that all of our resources are being used in the best way and that people in Welland, Nickel Belt, the rural areas of the member from Timmins–James Bay’s riding and in aboriginal communities all have the same access to mental health services, and that people in Toronto, Hamilton and London, where there are bigger communities and more resources—that everyone has the opportunity to have those resources available to them as well.

Back to the bill, certainly we will be supporting the bill. We know that we need to move forward with this and make sure that not only are these patients who are detained looked after, assessed and provided the appropriate support that they need in communities—some of them may be released to communities, though, that I talked about, where supports aren’t available. We need to make sure that the supports are there for them.

We also need to make sure that as we are moving some increased authority to the Consent and Capacity Board, we also put the resources in place, because, as we’ve heard from a number of people who talked about this, when the court is the authority and makes the orders, the resources are put in place to make sure that whatever treatment is needed is actually accomplished. We need to make sure the resources are put in place, as the authority increases for the consent board, to make sure that when they order things and make recommendations, the resources are available to those people who continue to be detained or are released to the community to make sure they have what they need.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to be able to rise and speak to Bill 122 and to thank the member from Welland for her intervention in this debate.

There were a few things that she said that I agree with, in that mental health is becoming a bigger issue. It relates, I think, to the positive of us being able to have a conversation now about mental health. It used to have—I know she also talked about that—a stigma, and for us, being able to talk about mental health is so important.

For 12 years of my life, I worked side by side in conjunction with individuals that she mentioned as well, which is psychiatric nurses. It is a difficult job, and we need to acknowledge the great work that they do.

I’m going to speak a little bit too in my remaining time about the why.

The government is actually looking at amending the Mental Health Act in response to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. I know a lot has been talked about that. So I think in that time frame, since the court struck down the CCB’s inability to tailor some of those conditions, the ministry has discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision with the CCB, the Ontario Review Board and the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, and asked for their thoughts on this amendment. As well, the Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council, which includes people with lived experience and family members, was consulted.

We wanted to make sure that these amendments that are now being proposed match what the court struck down and has given us the time to look at and to do.

With that, again, it is always my honour to stand up in this House and speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s absolutely a pleasure.

As I have said all the way through this debate, the concern that I think we have all shared is the stigma that still sometimes remains. We have certainly come a long way in opening some doors, but I think we all have to be open to the challenges of mental health and the impact that it has on the person that is suffering from it, but also the family and many of the people around the outside of a person who has that type of challenge.

I want to bring credit to my colleague, our health critic Jeff Yurek from Elgin–Middlesex–London. What Jeff said in his remarks is that mental health is equally important as physical health. It really is something that we have to be paying attention to and we have to put the resources in. This bill is something that I believe my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon, Sylvia Jones, suggests, if we can get it to committee and get unanimous consent—all three parties worked on the select committee—we could move forward very quickly. We could put legislation in place that is truly going to have an impact on the ground.

This year, World Mental Health Day was focused on dignity in mental health. Sadly, people with mental illnesses are often faced with misunderstanding and even blame, as my colleague Mr. Yurek said. The Ontario PC Party believes we have a responsibility to raise awareness of what can be done to ensure people with mental health conditions live with dignity, respect and inclusion.

There are so many people out there, and what we want to do is applaud and commend those organizations, the volunteers, the front-line staff members that work with those people who are struggling with mental health challenges. It’s a hugely challenging area.

My oldest son, Zach, is taking college courses right now to be a youth mental health worker. I’m very proud of him to be able to think from that perspective, that he wants to be that, because it’s a very challenging career to be out on the front lines every day, dealing with people who struggle with those types of challenges. So I commend him.

Again to the nurses, the front-line staff and the people in volunteer capacities in almost all of our organizations: thank you for what you do. We look forward to better results in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: First of all, I’d like to thank my colleague from Welland, who really didn’t touch enough on the fact that she’s a nurse and has faced this for a number of years. As we watched, we are now seeing in mental health that one in five will have mental health challenges in the province of Ontario.

When we take a look at this bill—also, my colleague from Welland touched on this—this has nothing to do with parties. This has to do with us getting it right. They need our support; they need our dollars, and how can you do that? Well, take a look around here at the MPPs who are here. We have nurses, both Conservative and NDP. We have doctors. We have the talent right here in this room to have a debate and an honest discussion on how we fix a crisis in the province of Ontario.

When you take a look at my riding of Niagara Falls, what they did in Niagara Falls was closed beds. So we have mental health patients—and most mental health patients, by the way, are living in poverty. Those are some of the problems of mental health. They have marriage split-ups. There are lots of problems. In a lot of cases, they don’t have cars. They can’t drive 20 minutes to St. Catharines. There isn’t bus service to get them there.

Who’s now becoming responsible for mental health in Niagara? It made no sense to close beds and pull out the services—absolutely none. But what’s happening—I don’t know if it’s happening in other communities; I’m sure it’s happening in rural communities in the province of Ontario, where police officers are now taking care of the mental health. What they do is, they pick them up, drive them to St. Catharines, and then, because of the reporting system that they have, they’re sitting in our hospitals for four, five and six hours, or sometimes the entire shift. Is that how we want to treat mental health in the province of Ontario? I say no.

Then when you take a look at nurses’ safety—I’ve only got a few seconds left—that has to be a concern. We have to make sure that our workers, our nurses are going to work and have the tools—that they’re not getting injured on the job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I think this morning we’re hearing a great degree of concurrence among all sides in the House that we need to move forward on this. I’ve been very impressed at some of the thoughtful and incisive comments made by my colleagues on all sides. I want to commend them for the thought that is going into this act, not only while it’s here in the House, but before it got to the House in the work being done by committee.

My colleague from Niagara Falls very movingly pointed out some of the issues he faces. In an area like Mississauga and Brampton, we actually have some of the opposite issues which, nonetheless, also point to the need for action. In a region like Mississauga and Brampton, every single year the equivalent of the population of the city of St. Marys moves to our two cities. Each and every year, it means we have to do the equivalent of building St. Marys, Ontario.

One of the issues we would face in the fast-growing areas, particularly those around the edge of Toronto in the 905 belt, is the problems of growth. In my own community, where I’ve campaigned very aggressively for increased funding for autism and health care and for treatment of mental health—in one of the areas in Peel region, we’ve managed to get something that we’ve long sought, which is our proportional share of funding for mental health problems. We’ve now managed to do that in Peel region, where we represent some 9% of the population of Ontario. That’s now approximately what we’re allocated in funding.

So in areas like Mississauga and Brampton, our problem is galloping growth, and I’m hoping that the provisions in this act will enable us to meet that challenge as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Welland. You have two minutes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you to all of the members for your comments in this debate.

The one positive thing about this bill is that it has given us the opportunity to debate some other issues related to mental health in this House that we never get the opportunity to speak to.

I’m sure we all have challenges in our areas, but I think if we didn’t silo mental health the way that is—my understanding is that mental health falls under 12 different ministries. Maybe we need to be having a look at each one of those ministries and figuring out how much it is costing us in policing and corrections because we’re using the police to deal with mental health issues, as opposed to health care advocates. How much is it costing us in corrections to keep somebody housed in a correctional facility—$40,000, $60,000 a year that could be used right in our community to provide those services? How much is it costing us in health care or in our schools?

I think it would be incumbent upon the government to go back and have a look at that, even if they tried a pilot project and moved some of those resources into mental health to make sure that we’re doing the best that we can for every person and every family here in the province of Ontario that deals with these issues on a daily basis.

Even the cost of health care unrelated to mental health—there’s a huge cost there as well when people don’t have the appropriate resources that they need when they have mental health issues.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased to have this opportunity this morning to speak in response to the government’s Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, which was introduced by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care as a government bill on Sept. 23, 2015.

While I think there is general agreement in the House that this bill should be supported and will pass at second reading—this is second reading debate—I think it’s necessary to point out that this is an example of the government’s legislative procrastination. This is something that has been talked about—actually, the court case I believe was last year, and the government has almost left this literally to the eleventh hour in terms of bringing it forward in the Legislature and having the debate.

The House is scheduled to rise for the Christmas break in December—December 10, I believe—and we have to get this bill passed before then or we’re told there are fairly severe consequences. Really, the government should have brought forward this bill for debate earlier. It should have been introduced earlier, and I think we have to put that on the record.

But at the same time, we recognize that there was a court case. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that certain provisions of the existing Mental Health Act related to the review process for long-term—meaning six months or more—stay in terms of involuntary patients were found to be unconstitutional, which, again, necessitates the government to respond.

I understand that the Court of Appeal found that “by failing to provide the Consent and Capacity Board ... with the powers to ‘ensure that the conditions of a person’s long-term detention are tailored to reflect the person’s actual level of risk, moving towards their ultimate [re]integration,’” the Mental Health Act, as it is currently constituted, “violates the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

“In finding that the” Mental Health Act “framework did not provide sufficient procedural oversight and protections, the Court of Appeal highlighted the” Consent and Capacity Board’s “lack of powers:

“—to determine the security level (both within and outside of a given facility), privileges (including community access), therapy and treatment of long-term involuntary patients; and

“—to craft orders that would ensure an appropriate balance between public safety and patient liberty.

“The Court of Appeal suspended the effect of its judgment for one year (until December 23, 2015) to provide the Legislature with time to respond to the decision and amend the legislation accordingly.”

I express appreciation to the Ontario hospital board for doing this backgrounder on Bill 122 that I made reference to just now.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario PC caucus recognizes the devastating effects that mental illness and the attached stigma has on the lives of thousands of Ontarians. I think that all of us in this Legislature know of family, friends, individuals in our community who have been challenged and affected by mental health issues. I think, frankly, the issue of stigma is to some degree—we’re making progress in that respect. There’s a greater degree of understanding in our communities now, given the fact that so many people are affected, perhaps one in five Canadians.

We need to do more in terms of the health care system and in terms of our community response to support these families and these individuals and to help them work their way through their mental illnesses.

We know for sure, Mr. Speaker, that there are many very effective treatments for mental health illnesses. We have cognitive behavioural therapies that I think are very effective in many cases, and of course medication is part of the treatment of many people with mental illness. We’ve made great strides in that direction.

Obviously, we have much, much more to do. We know, as a PC caucus, that mental health is just as important as physical health. We need to treat it that way, and we need to understand it in those terms. Mental illness, as I said, affects Ontarians of every age and demographic. We know that services in many areas of the province and in many situations and circumstances remain inadequate.

Recently, the Health Quality Ontario organization released its annual report. That report highlighted the unfortunate reality that hospital readmission rates for patients with mental illness—or education—have not improved in five years, and suicide rates have not improved in a decade. We need to do better for our vulnerable citizens. We need to work to combat the stigma, as I said earlier. Although I think we’ve made progress, we need to do more associated with mental health, start talking and provide greater access to treatment.

As I said earlier, the purpose of this bill is to come into compliance with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision that I referred to earlier. Currently, the Mental Health Act allows for repeated renewals of patients’ involuntary status: one month after a first certificate of renewal, two months after a second certificate of renewal, and three months for a third or subsequent certificate of renewal. There is no mechanism for civilly detained patients to challenge the conditions of their treatment. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered that the words “or subsequent” in

section 20(4)(b)(iii) of the Mental Health Act be struck out. Technically, that was the ruling of the court, and that’s what we have to respond to.

This bill creates a certificate of continuation, which is a new form capable of detaining a patient after the expiry of the third certificate of renewal. The certificate of continuation would allow a patient to be detained for a three-month period, similar to the third certificate of renewal. Subsequent certificates of continuation would allow a patient to be detained for further three-month periods.

When a patient is issued their first certificate of continuation, they are entitled to apply for a hearing with the Consent and Capacity Board—the CCB, as we sometimes call it—to confirm whether the prerequisites for involuntary status are met. This happens approximately at six and a half months.

I could go on and on about the details of the bill. I know that when the bill is passed at second reading—which I anticipate and expect it will be, because it seems to enjoy the support of the House—and goes to committee, I would hope that there will be an opportunity for some public hearings, at least. I realize the clock is ticking, but we have to give people an opportunity to have their say on this bill.

We’ve talked about some of the situations recently where government bills were referred to committee and the initial suggestion of the government has been that they allow deputants as little as four minutes to make their presentations. Clearly, people need to have a greater opportunity than just four minutes to make a presentation to a standing committee of the Legislature to make recommendations for improvement and change.

I would also add that there’s an interesting

article that I read in The Economist magazine this morning, a fairly recent issue of The Economist. This is their October 24, 2015, issue. They actually do editorials at the front end of the magazine, Mr. Speaker. You may know; you may read it. It’s a magazine that comes out of Great Britain. It is, I think, an authoritative source for news, but it’s also a magazine that promotes the ideas of freer trade and greater liberty. They don’t always advocate bigger government or higher government spending, but in this editorial they actually do when it comes to mental health.

They say that there is a case to be made for spending more money on mental health by government and by organizations in our communities, and particularly on research into mental health. They talk about the need to expend greater resources on research leading to better solutions. They make some good points that actually talk about not just the situation in Great Britain but worldwide, in particular the OECD.

I’ll read briefly from this editorial. They say: “Mental ill-health costs as much as 4% of GDP in lost productivity, disability benefits and health care bills, according to the OECD, a think tank. Many illnesses afflict the old disproportionately, but mental illness tends to strike the young, undermining productivity. In Sweden three fifths of new disability claims are for mental ill-health. Lives are cut short: seriously mentally ill people die 15 to 20 years younger than the rest of the population. And the economic burden seems to be growing heavier.

A few years ago, the World Economic Forum estimated that in the two decades to 2030 the cumulative cost of mental illness could be $16 trillion

“Yet spending on research into these conditions is paltry. In most wealthy countries there is a big discrepancy between mental health research spending and the total cost of mental illness.”

Again, the editorial goes on to make the case for greater expenditure in terms of mental health research. I think that’s something that all of us in this House need to ponder and consider in a time when, obviously, the government is still running a big deficit. It committed to balancing the budget by 2017-18, but, of course, we received the Financial Accountability Officer’s report earlier this week, which called into question whether or not the government will be able to meet that commitment.

In that fiscal context, where money is tight, we still need to find ways to identify priorities and ensure that the priorities are adequately funded. I think that, certainly, based on the tenor and tone of this debate, there is strong support in this House, from all sides of the House, to ensure that mental health issues are adequately addressed. Again, I would suggest that we need to look into how we’re expending money on research and see if we can find ways to stretch those dollars and do a better job.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is going to receive the support of the House. We look forward to further debate and committee hearings as we try to get it right for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I was actually looking forward to getting up and being able to contribute to this debate for a little bit more time, but nevertheless, I will happily take these two minutes to weigh in.

One of the things that’s been talked about extensively in this debate is the fact that this is a missed opportunity. This bill, needed as it is, is so focused and so specific that it’s missing out on all the other challenges that we have when it comes to accessing mental health services in Ontario.

Specifically, what I wanted to talk about is the deficit that actually occurs in the northwest. We have many structural challenges that serve as an impediment to us having a healthy society. I just wanted to draw a picture of what happens and how people can access mental health services in the northwest. It is not uncommon for people in small towns in northwestern Ontario to have access to a psychiatrist who comes to our town once a month. That is, once a month, everybody in that town, if you are lucky, gets to see that psychiatrist for maybe the one or two days they are there.

Otherwise, they have to travel 200 kilometres. Some members have talked about the challenge that exists with travelling 20 kilometres. That is a challenge, I’m not denying that, but imagine travelling 200 kilometres.

And then, the other thing that we’re not talking about, too, is the very real and tragic situation that we have among our First Nations youth and the tragic level of youth suicides that are literally an epidemic sweeping through our communities, something that we all know about, something that is incumbent upon us to get together and figure out the solutions to and fix this so that we don’t see our children and our future being lost. I just can’t stress that enough. This is a terrible missed opportunity. We need to do so much more.

While I applaud the government for finally getting together and taking action on this, we need to expand our scope.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: It’s my pleasure to get up today to be able to add a few comments to today’s debate. As members in this House know, I have been a nurse for all of my career. Indeed, I have been able to care for many folks with mental health issues throughout my career, both as an emergency and intensive care unit nurse, but also as a care coordinator working in health care and home care, and trying to assist those with mental health issues.

I am very much in support of Bill 122, the amendments to the Mental Health Act. I think that my number one priority continues to be the protection and safety of all Ontarians, but including those who suffer from mental health issues. Certainly, these amendments would, if passed, ensure that the Mental Health Act aligns with the charter, and at the same time enhance the rights of involuntary, long-term patients who have been committed to psychiatric facilities.

I just wanted to say that there’s no question that mental health and addictions is a very significant and complex issue that cuts across multiple areas of society and touches the lives of many people. Indeed, work that I’ve done in trying to find adequate housing for someone who’s suffering from mental health illness and looking for those supports has been challenging because of the range of complex issues. You need to be able to balance the needs and the rights of that person who’s afflicted with a mental health illness with the safety of the workers and the public, when those people are in the community.

Looking at supportive housing, to be able to move people from the psychiatric facilities into homes, is the best-case scenario. We do need to address that in the future.

I think that this bill will go a long way in being able to review each individual’s case regularly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I want to commend the member from Wellington–Halton Hills on his comments and his very concise erudition of this bill, the iteration of it.

Our caucus supports this bill at second reading. We want to see some improvements to it, of course. We recognize the devastating effects of mental illness and the attached stigma that it has placed on many Ontarians. Mental health is just as important as physical health, and we need to treat it that way, and we need to put those types of resources towards it.

Just last week, Health Quality Ontario’s annual report highlighted the unfortunate reality that hospital readmission rates for patients suffering from mental illness or addiction have not improved in the last five years, and suicide rates have not improved in over a decade. We need to do better, and we must do better, for the most vulnerable.

The Ontario mental health day: The Ontario PC Party stands in solidarity with those Ontarians and Canadians directly and indirectly affected by mental illness, and their families. As Jeff Yurek said, the mental health day is an opportunity for Ontarians to learn and discuss mental health problems and understand that mental illness can affect anyone: “The Ontario PC Party believes that mental health is just as important as physical health. We need to treat it that way.”

As the stats show, and as a number of speakers have already alluded to, for one in five Canadians—20%, Mr. Speaker—mental illness is the leading cause of disability in Canada, costing the economy, let alone those families, a great deal.

I think I read that the number $51 billion is the estimate in Canada—$1 billion a week, indirectly or directly, because of mental illness. The lost productivity is expected to be somewhere in the range of $5.5 billion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I certainly am pleased to rise on Bill 122. I’m pleased to see that the health minister is here today, because I want to talk to him again—really plead with him, actually, to get involved with CarePartners and the nurses in the seven months they’ve been on the picket line.

They deal with mental health every day. That means the residents in Niagara, because they serve the entire area of Niagara, not just St. Catharines, under Mr. Bradley, the MPP for St. Catharines. They do the whole area. I’m asking the minister to please take a serious look at this issue and get them back to work. Get our nurses back to work so the residents in Niagara aren’t being underserviced, including in mental health.

The mental health file that nobody has really talked about this morning is that what we’ve seen is young people having mental health issues, and how we have to be educated around that. I think even the Minister of Health will probably even realize this: It seems that we’re having a lot more of our young people, young people in our schools—mostly in high school, but some in university—taking their own lives. We’re not seeing the warning signs.

I said earlier in my speech very clearly, we have lots of talent in this room. With have a doctor in the room and we have nurses in the room—our member is a nurse. We have nurses over here. Let’s sit down collectively and do our jobs together, find a solution to the mental health issue and make sure resources are going to mental health.

I already said—the doctor wasn’t here at time; the Minister of Health wasn’t here at time—that they closed beds in my riding in Niagara Falls, where most of the people who are suffering mental health issues live in poverty. They don’t have cars. They don’t have ways to go 20 minutes down the road. That makes absolutely no sense. We’re using our police officers to take people with mental health issues into communities, and then that area is underserviced. I plead to you: Please take a look at CarePartners.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to express my appreciation to members who responded to my brief remarks this morning.

I return to the report of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, which initiated its work more than five years ago. It was a process that was initiated, really, by our former colleague Christine Elliott, who served with distinction for many years in the Legislature. It became an issue that the government was prepared to respond to in terms of the establishment of a select committee to look at this important issue.

It was a remarkable example of all-party co-operation, I would say—I know the member for St. Catharines would agree—where members set their partisan differences at the door and worked very hard for, I think, 18 months, to listen to people and to develop comprehensive and thoughtful recommendations as to what needed to be done with respect to responding to mental health issues and addictions issues.

The report is still obviously current, in my view, even though the work commenced five years ago and the report was issued three and a half years ago or thereabouts—maybe four years ago. I think the government needs to respond to these recommendations. I think the government would tell us that they are responding to the recommendations and implementing some of the recommendations as policy, bit by bit. But, surely, we can get moving on this, given the fact there was such strong all-party consensus that found its way into the committee process.

I would commend the other members of the committee who worked so diligently for those 18 months: You, Mr. Speaker, the member from Scarborough–Rouge River, were on that committee; I see the member for Nickel Belt; the member for Dufferin–Caledon played a very active role; the member for Guelph, who is now the Minister of Education, was involved; Maria Van Bommel, the former member; the member for Peterborough, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food; and the current Minister of Community and Social Services, as well. They were members of this select committee.

I think we need to get behind these recommendations and get them implemented.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I thank everyone for their comments.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 am.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There may be a list of a lot of introductions, so I’m going to ask everyone to stay to our format to get it all in in time.

We’ll now do introductions of guests.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to welcome the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Steering Committee. I look forward to doing the official introductions later.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I had the privilege of introducing Kyle Preuss’s father here yesterday, Brian. Today, I have the privilege of introducing his mother, Mrs. Heather McCoy. Welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have a good friend here today. Steve Apostolopoulos is the managing partner of Triple Group of Companies, and they’re the company behind the major tourism destination in Pickering known as Durham Live. He is here in the east gallery. Welcome.

I’d like to introduce some children as well, a group of grade 5 students from my riding. They’re coming in from Cardinal Léger Catholic elementary school, and I look forward to seeing them in the House today.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce the man who takes care of this smile, Dr. Larry Hoffman, and the woman who puts a smile on his face, Carol Hoffman; their nephew Russell, and his children, Jake and Samantha.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d to welcome the grandparents of page captain Marco Di Laudo, Ron and Marlene Regher, who are here today to take

part in today’s proceedings. Thank you.

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have the pleasure of having two introductions this morning. The page captain today is Symrin Flora, York West legislative page, from our local Gulfstream Public School, and her father is here with us today, Charanjit Flora. I want to welcome them, and I want to thank Symrin for the service that she does in this House. I hope that she will enjoy her stay here.

The second introduction, Speaker—and if you wonder about the weather, I have to say it comes from the wonderful island of Sicily. We have a delegation composed of the mayor of Vita—a wonderful dottoressa—doctor—Ms. Fina Galifi, and her husband, Giuseppe Mezzapelle. They are here in the audience. With the delegation we have Dominic Renda, the president of ATEM; Mr. Vince Abate, past president; Maria Abate; Sam Curia; and Enza Curia. I want to welcome them and thank them for the wonderful weather they brought from Sicily.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome James McIntosh, CEO of the Duxbury Cider Co., and Bryan Watts, VP of marketing for the Thornbury Beverage Co.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome the federal candidate in the riding of Simcoe North, Liz Riley, and thank her for all the hard work she does in her riding.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature this morning Kathleen Millar and Daniel Millar, who are the parents of our fine page from Wellington–Halton Hills, John Millar.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of the member from Thornhill, I’d like to welcome the mother of page Nicole Haim, here this morning: Karine Benzacar. She is in the members’ gallery, joining us this morning.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce three members of the Niagara Injured Workers: Julia Lucas, Chester Marczewski and Willy Noiles.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Just making their way into the gallery in a few minutes, I believe, are the children from the grade 5 class at St. Clement Catholic School. I wanted to welcome them here to the Legislature.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of the member from Oxford, I’d like to introduce the mother of page Abby Moreside, Kathy Moreside, and also her aunt, Theresa Moreside. They will be in the members’ gallery joining us this morning.

M me France Gélinas: They are making their way into the chamber, but Dr. Keith Klassen and Dr. Ed Bassis are both from Sudbury, and they offer rehab psychology. They are here to talk about the poor treatment of WSIB for their clients.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park a constituent of mine, Matthew Farwell, and his friend Alexander Horn from Toronto. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Further to my earlier introduction, I just wanted to welcome—they’re coming into the gallery now—the children from St. Clement Catholic School, teachers Giovanna Di Tomaso and Jaclyn Cashley, and their chaperone, Kira Houchen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would the members please join me in welcoming a group of women parliamentarians from across Canada who, along with Ontario’s CWP representative, the member from Huron–Bruce, Lisa Thompson, are attending the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians’ outreach session in Toronto.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery are Patricia Arab from Nova Scotia, Julie Boulet from Quebec, Lisa Harris from New Brunswick, Debbie Jabbour from Alberta, Martina Mundy from Prince Edward Island, Laura Ross from Saskatchewan and Jackie Tegart from British Columbia. They are accompanied by Elizabeth Kingston, the CWP executive secretary.

Welcome, ladies. We’re glad you’re here with us.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members will be aware that there appear on today’s Orders and Notices paper two notices of opposition days to be debated in the week following the constituency week. Under standing order 43(c), the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration. I’d like to advise the members that the motion by Ms. Horwath is the one that will be selected for debate on Wednesday, November 18.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, no. I thought ours was better.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t worry. We know how to make it balanced.

Remembrance Day / Jour du Souvenir

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will now receive a point of order from the deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to mark Remembrance Day, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice, and we now know what that notice is. Do we agree to the motion? Agreed? Agreed.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you, Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

November 11 is Remembrance Day. Tributes are offered throughout the country and in this chamber. We recognize veterans’ sacrifices.

We talk about defending freedom, and those are noble ideals, but on another level, sometimes I think we forget to ask ourselves the very important question: What did their sacrifices actually mean in terms of the individuals, their families and their friends?

I think there is an obligation on us to try to understand their sacrifice in these very personal ways: what it meant to them, what it meant in their minds and what it meant in their hearts. I think we have an obligation to try and feel the pain and the grief of their mothers, their fathers, their siblings and their friends.

Speaker, it is impossible to comprehend, in the safety of our homes, in the safety of our careers, in the safety of this chamber, exactly what that meant. How are we to understand what it must have felt like to be shot at and bombed, to suffer grievous wounds, to die from grievous wounds or to be maimed? But this is the visceral reality of what it is like to serve in defence of these noble virtues of democracy and freedom.

All of their names are chiseled on the various cenotaphs throughout the province of Ontario: in small-town Ontario, villages, big cities, rural communities and high school remembrance plaques, all over the province. But how many of us, Speaker, passing a cenotaph, passing one of these high school plaques, take a moment to pause and just look at the names on those plaques and ask ourselves: “What did it mean to them and their families at the very personal level?”

I think that our obligation on this Remembrance Day is to try to feel that reality, that danger, that fear. Each of those individuals faced horror, fear, danger, and then all of those emotions must have also been felt by their parents, their siblings and their friends. Our obligation is to understand the magnitude of their risk and their sacrifices, and to respect them for that.

Let me tell you a very human story to drive this point home. Mrs. C.S. Woods of Winnipeg, Manitoba was invited by the Canadian government to the national Vimy monument unveiling in the late 1920s. There’s a picture of her in a magazine of the day that covered it. She is standing there quietly, saluting in a very frail, dignified, but brave manner.

This is what the caption under the photograph says: “Among the Canadian pilgrims who attended the unveiling of the Vimy ... memorial was Silver Cross Mother Mrs. C.S. Woods of Winnipeg, who lost eight sons in the war.” That day she wore all their medals on her jacket. Just let that thought sink in: a mother, a father, a family—eight sons.

I did a little bit of research into the background of Mrs. Woods. She had 12 children, 11 sons, all of whom enlisted; two were underage, and eight never came home. Need I say more? I think we have an obligation to ask ourselves how we comprehend that sacrifice of her sons, and of her mother and of her siblings. How do we honour it? How do we remember it? That’s our challenge. That’s our responsibility on this day of remembrance.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: My dad was a navy veteran. He couldn’t swim. His ship was torpedoed twice. He was a brave man. “Son,” he used to say to me, “you haven’t paid your debt to the past until you have left a future indebted to yourself.” It’s during times like this, where as a grateful nation and province we acknowledge the debt paid on our behalf by the brave men and women who fought for our future, that my father’s words echo within my conscience.

I am reminded—as I know we all are—that it is our duty to gather together, heads bowed, in sombre and solemn remembrance, to honour the sacrifices Canadian soldiers have made in the two great wars, in Korea, in Afghanistan and in numerous peacekeeping missions.

As the sound of the Last Post touches our ears, and the familiar words of Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae’s memorial poem In Flanders Fields once again touch our hearts, our thoughts are filled with sorrow for those lost on foreign battlefields, be it on the land, in the air or at sea.

The contributions Canadians have made in these historic conflicts solidified our reputation as a nation that doesn’t go looking for fights, but will not shirk from them. Those who answered the call to serve defined our Canada, known across the globe as a strong, peaceful and multicultural country. Our Canada, that stands tall as a free nation: Let us never forget that that is a privilege earned by the soldier and donated to us all.

It is our duty to remember how they died and the sacrifices they made, but it is equally important to remember how they lived: with duty, selflessness and honour.

At this time of remembrance, let’s us also reflect on those who came home, our glorious veterans. Let us pay tribute to how they went on living and the values they represented, values forged in the despair of war, learned on battlefields and brought home to build this great province and this great country.

Reflecting on how they lived is truly the essence of Remembrance Day, because it is our duty to celebrate rich lives lost or forever changed in the defence of freedoms and the ideals we cherish. There simply is no greater sacrifice. They believed in a cause worth fighting for. They believed in a greater good and that their endeavours, rife with great peril, had a purpose for future generations. What a great lesson for us all who have been granted the privilege to live in this great country.

To make lives better for future generations, we must always stand strong and united in the face of adversity and emulate the hard-won values our soldiers forged for us to follow. We are indeed indebted to those who served, both living and dead, and it is our duty, as Lieutenant Colonel McCrae reminds us: “To you from failing hands we throw / The torch; be yours to hold it high.”

Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the upcoming observance of Remembrance Day. Wednesday marks the armistice that arrived at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month. Remembrance Day is a time to mourn, but it’s also a time to celebrate the proud military traditions of our great country. Canada has always answered the call to stand up for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Ninety-seven years ago, the First World War ended. Le Canada a toujours répondu à l’appel pour défendre la liberté, la démocratie, les droits de l’homme et la règle du droit. Il y a 97 ans, la Première Guerre mondiale a pris fin.

On November 11, we remember all those who placed themselves in harm’s way and all those who still risk themselves for the values of our great province and our country today. Regardless of their political allegiances or philosophical beliefs, Canadians all share a common admiration and deep respect for Canadian veterans. They are the tie that binds the citizens of our great country together.

On November 11, I’m always reminded, on a more personal level, of my great-uncle Frankie, who was the president of the Barrie Legion for years. As a child, he would take me to the Barrie Legion. My grandfather brought them to Simcoe county. They were trained at Base Borden. My uncle Frankie served overseas. He always told me that that Canadian flag means so much when you travel abroad. I remember once as a student going over to Holland and seeing that appreciation for the Canadian maple leaf. It really is an incredible honour, what so many of our veterans did in that moment that will never be forgotten in history.

Mr. Speaker, we think of all our brave men and women who never came home, all the grieving families, all the soldiers who have been wounded in body and spirit, something we all talk about all too seldom.

Monsieur le Président, nous pensons à tous les braves hommes et femmes qui ne sont jamais revenus, toutes les familles en peine, tous les soldats qui ont été blessés en corps et en esprit, quelque chose dont nous parlons trop rarement.

They paid the ultimate sacrifice, and that is why on Remembrance Day, in communities across Canada, thousands of families will stand before memorials and cenotaphs for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for Canada. With bravery and unwavering determination, our veterans have defended our home, our security and our freedom. They stood up for our values in the face of grave danger, and we owe them a debt of endless gratitude, especially those currently serving overseas. The Canadian Forces continue to make a sacrifice that we can’t even fathom.

I encourage young people to reach out to a veteran and learn their story and share it with your friends. Maybe write a letter to a member of the Canadian Forces who is posted overseas or to a local base commander, or spend time at a local retirement home with those who have lived through the experience of wartime—passer quelque temps à une maison de retraite locale avec ceux qui ont vécu l’expérience de la guerre.

Mr. Speaker, there are many honourable ways to thank the men and women who have served Canada in times of war for their incredible sacrifice. May we always remember the fallen who went far from home to answer the call of peace.

Lest we forget.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On behalf of New Democrats, I’m honoured to rise to share a few remarks about next week’s Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Next week, our nation observes Remembrance Day. As that happens, Canadians will be taking

part in ceremonies at local war memorials, Legion halls, cenotaphs. Rain or shine, our country will come together to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that our veterans and all of our servicewomen and men have made in the defence of our country and in defence of our shared values and freedoms.

Some of our veterans will march, others will be assisted by former comrades or family members, but as the clock reaches the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, they will all be at attention as the Last Post is played. As those familiar notes sound in all corners of our province and our country, we will all turn our minds back to a time that is barely imaginable for us today.

This was a time when young women and men were sent to places that they had never heard of or even imagined—places that now stand in infamy with names that are seared into our national memory: Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Juno Beach, Ortona, Korea and, more recently, Afghanistan. There are peacekeeping missions as well, missions like Bosnia and Rwanda.

This was a time when young men and women, and sometimes children, left their families behind, abandoned their textbooks or postponed their careers, and went off to fight and often to die in the service of our country. When confronted with the enormity of what was demanded of these soldiers and the harrowing price that so many paid, the scale of their sacrifice is truly humbling. Often, the depictions of war and peacekeeping missions alike show images of acts of incredible courage. But what we don’t see are the invisible scars—the psychological wounds that our veterans will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

War is not glamorous. It leaves behind great human devastation. Men, women and children are its victims. It is our responsibility, each and every time we send servicemen and women into active duty, to support them every step of the way, especially when they return home. Our words in remembrance of our fallen soldiers and those who have returned home from the horrors of war are weak and empty if they are not accompanied by the will to ensure that their sacrifices are remembered through our actions and our deeds.

In the last stanza of the famous poem In Flanders Fields—which, in fact, celebrated its 100-year anniversary this year—John McCrae calls on the reader not to break faith with those who died, and he passes the torch to future generations to continue the struggle. This is the struggle to build a better world for our children and our grandchildren. It rests on all of us, all Canadians, not to break faith with that commitment.

Thanks to Canada’s veterans, so many of us and our children will never have to live through the scourge of war. We owe them so very much. We can never actually repay that debt. We can only hope to be equal to their sacrifice, both in life and in death. On November 11, New Democrats commit ourselves to remembering—remembering those who have served in our past and remembering those who serve today. We honour them all. We will remember them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their heartfelt, sincere and supportive comments. I am going to take a step beyond the motion and request that we all stand for a moment’s silence as a group together.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We will remember them.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: For the Acting Premier: Today’s the day—the day the Liberals can’t turn back from. They’re going to give away an asset that produces $700 million in revenue for the people of Ontario, all of which will amount to just two years of revenue from Hydro One. In the end, the Liberals will get as little as $1.4 billion of new cash from the Hydro One sale, an amount that won’t even cover the cost of one new, significant transit project.

Mr. Speaker, why has the Liberal government mortgaged Ontario’s future for such a short-sighted and short-term gain?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the question on this day. Indeed, Ontario is generating significant returns from broadening the ownership of Hydro One. We do remain on track to realize our budget target of $9 billion from this, generated through the IPO. That’s $4 billion for infrastructure and $5 billion for debt.

This move supports the single largest investment in transit and transportation infrastructure in the province’s history. The IPO has now closed for Hydro One common shares and has begun trading today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: I’m surprised the Acting Premier demonstrates no remorse, no regret. I’m certain that will come later.

Nearly 80% of the people of Ontario oppose the sale. The FAO has confirmed that that 80% knows what we’ve said all along: This is a bad deal for Ontario. The sale will raise the cost of hydro and make life even more unaffordable for Ontario’s residents.

I know that every member on the government side is sharing the same concerns from your constituents that we’re hearing. They’re scared of what this deal is going to mean for Ontario.

My question for the Acting Premier is this: Real leadership is recognizing when you’ve made a mistake, to correct course. After hearing everything, will you do the right thing? Will you reverse course and stop this bad deal for Ontario?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we start, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, come to order.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think real leadership means giving accurate information to the people of this province.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you haven’t caught the message, I’m going to be jumping on this. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite—in fact, the members opposite continue to perpetuate the inaccurate sense that hydro rates are somehow going to be impacted by broadening the ownership of Hydro One. That is absolutely false. The member opposite knows that the Ontario Energy Board regulates rates today and will regulate rates in the future. To make the link between this move and increasing rates is simply intended to frighten people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: You want to talk about accurate information? Read the Financial Accountability Officer’s report on this disastrous sale of Hydro One. That report confirmed what we’ve been saying all along: that the government’s mythical infrastructure plans from the proceeds of Hydro One won’t amount to any new money for infrastructure. The infrastructure plan stood at $130 billion for 10 years before the sale; now it’s $130 billion post sale. You’re not putting any money into infrastructure.

At best, it’s $1.4 billion. With the 2015 budget, you’ve made no correction for infrastructure. So don’t say it’s about infrastructure when everyone sees that it’s not.

As little as $1.4 billion—you’re mortgaging our future. It’s not in the best interests of Ontario.

My question to the Acting Premier is: Hearing all the evidence, will you do the right thing finally and say, “Enough is enough. This is a bad deal for Ontario”?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is an absolutely ludicrous question. We have put in our budget the $130 billion for infrastructure investment, and we have laid out a plan on how we’re going to pay for that. Paying for the infrastructure includes maximizing the value of our assets. That’s what we’re doing because this province needs those investments in infrastructure. If you think you want to cancel those the way you cancelled the Eglinton Crosstown—I’ll tell you, the people of Ontario are looking to leadership, looking to government to build the infrastructure that our economy needs and that our people need.

Ring of Fire

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Acting Premier: I’ve always said that when the government acts in the best interests of Ontario, we’ll be the first to applaud them. When the government committed $1 billion to develop the economic potential of the Ring of Fire, I acknowledged that that was a great announcement. But what I’m concerned about is that there are no timelines for getting shovels in the ground. This Liberal promise appears like many before: It’s all about election time and not about an actual implementation of that idea; it’s about photo ops. And because this government is dithering, investors in the Ring of Fire, like Noront Resources, are left waiting.

Mr. Speaker, will this Liberal government today give Noront and the people of northern Ontario a firm timeline for its promised commitment to the Ring of Fire?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m glad to have an opportunity to respond to that question. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that Noront Resources made it very clear that they remain committed to the project, and we’re working very closely with them. In fact, they announced that they are moving forward on an exploration project within the Ring of Fire area themselves.

As a government, we remain absolutely committed to the project. We have our commitment of $1 billion for the transportation infrastructure corridor locked in, thanks to the Minister of Finance. We are looking forward to an opportunity to have a discussion with the new federal government to engage in the process that was not very successful in the past with the previous government.

We are engaged in a regional framework discussion with Matawa First Nations, and we have set up a development corporation to move that forward. So we are indeed making very positive progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The time for talk is over. It’s time for action in the north. Northerners and investors are tired of this government’s wait-and-see attitude toward the development of the Ring of Fire.

As noted in yesterday’s National Post, this government’s lack of action on its billion-dollar infrastructure promise to the Ring of Fire leaves investors worried and frustrated. Platitudes and photo ops don’t get shovels in the ground; they don’t get people working. Only a firm timeline for construction of a transportation corridor in the Ring of Fire will give investors the confidence they need.

Mr. Speaker, will the government do the right thing? Will they give us a timeline and give the people of northern Ontario the confidence that they’re actually going to honour this election commitment?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I would certainly invite the leader of the official opposition and other members of his party to have a conversation with Mr. Coutts of Noront Resources, who is obviously very keen to move forward. We are all very keen to move the project forward, and within the last year and a half a number of significant measures have taken place. We had the historic, precedent-setting regional framework agreement signed with the Matawa First Nations, something that others will say we need to focus on, and indeed we do.

We recognize that in order for this project to move forward, it needs to be embraced by the First Nations and there needs to be an assurance that they will be seeing benefits from this major resource development project, a project that I think the Leader of the Opposition probably needs to be reminded is in a remote part of the province that has never seen development before. That’s why our recognition that indeed we need to—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —$1-billion commitment was so crucial.

Mr. Speaker, we’re working closely with the companies and First Nations, and looking forward to a much better—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Acting Premier: I’m tired of these excuses. It’s been eight years since the Ring of Fire—

Interjections.

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

Please, finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, it’s been eight years to do nothing. It’s been five years since the government created the Ring of Fire Secretariat, and we haven’t seen a shovel in the ground. In fact, the government can’t even commit to a start date for the development.

What we’ve seen described as Ontario’s own oil sands is estimated to create a $9.4-billion economic boom for all of Ontario at the least—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s start the clock.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I guess we’ve hit a nerve with their record of all talk and no action. The reality is that they’ve spent eight years blaming other people: blaming the federal government, blaming previous governments. There is no one for you to blame now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The reality is, these are thousands and thousands of dollars—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’d already said “answer.”

Minister.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I truly do not mean to be impolite, but I do think the Leader of the Opposition is betraying a true lack of understanding of how the mining process works in the province. This is a project that, again I will remind him, is a huge resource development opportunity; yes, a remarkable opportunity in a remote part of the province that requires us, for all the right reasons, to work very, very closely—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville—second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The progress and the commitments that we made related to this major resource development project are unprecedented. The work that we’re doing with the Matawa First Nations, the regional framework agreement, you would acknowledge is an important part of the process. We’re going to continue to work closely with them relating to regional infrastructure, resource revenue-sharing—all of those aspects that are so important to ensure the First Nations do better. Our $1-billion—

Interjections.

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

Two things are happening here that I suspect are rather frustrating for the majority. We’ve got comments going back and forth that raise the ire of each side, and then individuals decide that they can jump in and make comments that are not what we consider here to be appropriate in terms of names and elevating the debate, and the heat of the debate. All of the other processes that are in place are rational. They make sense. You address the Chair in your question and you address the Chair in your answer. It helps to lower the temperature, not raise it.

Whether or not anyone wants to make a comment about what I’m saying, if they say it, I’ll let you go.

Let’s just finish with a wrap-up, please, and we’ll move on to the next question.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Our $1-billion, locked-in commitment to the transportation infrastructure is extraordinarily significant, and we look forward to—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. On Tuesday, the Acting Premier told this House, “We are looking at other assets.” Is the Liberal government going to sell more revenue-generating assets?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s appropriate for us to look at all of the opportunities that are available to the province of Ontario to create opportunities and to seize upon them. At this point in time, we made it clear in our budget that we are looking at our real estate and a number of our agencies. We determined that Hydro One was one of those organizations that could be improved upon. Hence, we’ve taken the steps necessary to broaden its ownership and make it a much more effective customer service organization, for the benefit of all Ontarians, and to get to reinvest some of that money into new projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals like to tell a story about how they campaigned on selling Hydro One. Of course, selling off Hydro One wasn’t anywhere in their platform. Instead, they talked about asset optimization, and then they act shocked that Ontarians didn’t think it was obvious that this actually meant selling off Hydro One.

On Tuesday, the Acting Premier told this House, “We are looking at other assets.” I’m hoping that the Acting Premier can clarify exactly what she meant this time for the people of Ontario. Is “looking at other assets” Liberal code for putting even more revenue-generating assets on the auction block in the future?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I remind the member opposite that we put in our budget a paragraph around asset optimization. Our plan was clearly stated in our 2014 budget and in our election platform, and it was supported, ultimately, by a majority mandate. In it, we talk about our four-pillar economic plan, including unlocking the value of our assets to optimize the necessity to enable us to reinvest money to make even more opportunity for the province of Ontario by investing it in the Trillium Trust.

The NDP made a claim that they would have done exactly the same thing. They did that in their nine-page platform. They talked about how they were going to make the cuts necessary to balance the books and they were going to invest all this money with the very same assumption that we made in ours. The member opposite actually talked about it during that election campaign, and it’s no secret.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The bottom line is that the Premier did not run on selling off Hydro One, but here we are. The Premier didn’t run on selling other revenue-generating assets, but earlier this week the Deputy Premier, the second most senior minister in the Liberal government, said that more public assets could be going on the auction block. Maybe that’s our nuclear reactors and the rest of the OPG; maybe that’s the LCBO; it could be the OLG. These assets bring in significant revenues which help us invest in health care, education, transit, poverty reduction, our environment—you name it.

Will the Liberals do the right thing, stop any further sale of Hydro One and commit that they will not sell off any more of our revenue-generating assets here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The government will do the right thing. We will do everything necessary to maximize the potential of our assets, ensure that we create greater value for the consumers, ratepayers and taxpayers, and ensure that we reinvest it into new assets to make more opportunity so that we can reinvest and create a more competitive province.

The member opposite recognizes that assets were identified in the budget very clearly; we named them. We actually said what assets we were looking at, and we ultimately saw a greater opportunity to maximize value for Hydro One, a component of the electricity system that is in a competitive environment with others. It’s trading today, and I look forward to the market reaction as we proceed forward.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. Hydro One shares are trading on the TSX today, and it’s funny, because I don’t recall the Premier running on a plan to sell off Hydro One. Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer confirmed that selling Hydro One will mean Ontario’s financial situation will be “worse than it would have been without the sale.”

Will this government do the right thing, come to its senses and hit the brakes on selling off any more of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think we need to remind ourselves why we are doing this. We’re doing it so we can build the transit, the transportation, the schools, the highways that this province needs.

The member opposite might think we can do that without taking any action, but the reality is that we need to pay for that infrastructure. Broadening the ownership of Hydro One allows us to make those infrastructure investments now, when they are needed.

There are experts who have argued that we’re actually not spending enough on infrastructure. We need to create those jobs, we need to keep up with population growth, we need to maintain the infrastructure we have. Experts have called for us to increase our infrastructure investment up to 5% of our GDP, up from 3.5%. Broadening the ownership of Hydro One helps us get there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Financial Accountability Officer, an independent officer of this Legislature, told this government that the sell-off of Hydro One is the absolute worst way to fund infrastructure investments. The Liberal government made the wrong decision when it chose to sell off a part of Hydro One. Now the first block of shares have been sold on the markets, but it is not too late to stop the next block of shares from going to market. Selling 15% is bad, but selling 60% is a disaster. Will the Liberals listen to the facts put forward by the FAO, come to their senses and stop the further selling off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Instead of putting words in the mouth of the Financial Accountability Officer, let me read what he actually wrote in his report, which I have read. On page 9, he says, “This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One....” Let me repeat that: “This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One....”

He goes on to say that there are conditions around his report. The fact is that he looked at one part of this decision. He did not look at the benefits of actually investing in infrastructure.

We’re talking about 110,000 jobs to build the infrastructure that we need. Now is the time to build infrastructure, and we have to use the resources we have, to be able to do that now.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As a public asset, Hydro One had 13 million owners. Today, that ownership is getting smaller. The government isn’t broadening ownership. It’s handing the ownership to a small group of private shareholders.

These are the facts: The FAO report proved that this will mean less money in the long term for transit and other services; 185 municipalities, and counting, have told the Premier to keep Hydro public; the Premier shut First Nations out of the process; and eight out of 10 Ontarians want to keep Hydro One public.

Will the Liberals hit the brakes before even more of Hydro One ends up helping the Premier’s powerful friends instead of helping Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member’s question underlines her lack of understanding of what this deal is. Ontarians, all 13.5 million of us, still own 85% of Hydro One. When this is complete, we will still be able to make the big decisions that are important to the public interest. We are protecting the public interest as we generate the revenue that is necessary to build infrastructure.

Speaker, more people own Hydro One today than did this morning because we are broadening the ownership. But rest assured, every person in this province will continue to have significant ownership in Hydro One.

Ring of Fire

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. When De Beers was well under way building Ontario’s only diamond mine, the Liberal government introduced a diamond royalty. This new tax shocked the owners of the Victor mine, as they had already spent over $1 billion in development. They were literally in too deep to cancel their project.

Last year, Cliffs Natural Resources, one of the senior mining companies exploring in the Ring of Fire, did cancel their project. In fact, not only did they sell off their Ring of Fire property; they actually left Ontario.

Speaker, I ask the minister, did the Liberal government ever propose a chromite royalty? Is that why Cliffs left Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. I thank the member for the question. The reality is, of course, that we have an extraordinarily positive working relationship with De Beers. One of the great opportunities we have in the province was the Victor diamond mine, which opened up in 2008. I know that De Beers has continued to look at how they can operate it and find another extension of their property, so that’s going to be good news in the future, and we’re going to keep working with them.

As for the work that we’re doing right now on the Ring of Fire, the member knows well—and it would be certainly helpful if, rather than always trying to talk down the great economic opportunity we have in the Ring of Fire, they worked with us to support the work that we’re doing, which includes the work that Noront Resources is doing and includes the extraordinarily real effort we’re making with the First Nations to bring everyone together so we can see real partnership on this great resource development opportunity for all of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again to the minister: It’s interesting that he avoided the answer about the chromite tax. But also, an interesting by-product of the gas plants scandal hearings were the documents the government had to release.

Here’s page 2,156 under the heading “Confidential—Commercially Sensitive Material.”

The

section on Cliffs reads: “The province created the chromite royalty.

“Expected revenues from the new chromite royalty, which was created for this Ring of Fire project ... range from $6.6 million to $34.4 million per year.”

A major mining discovery is made, and the very first thing this Liberal government thought of was, “How can we tax them more?” Well, they taxed them right out of Ontario. Speaker, will the minister now admit that their failed policies and new tax meant that thousands of people aren’t working in the Ring of Fire today?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Interjection: Oh, seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yeah, right.

Answer, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: One thing that we’ve been very clear about—and I think it’s shared by everyone who wants to see this project move forward—is that it’s absolutely vital that we do this right. That is why we have engaged so closely, obviously, with industry to make sure that they are partners with us in moving forward on the project.

The member knows full well that in many ways the markets will also be a very real factor in terms of making that decision. We are actually in an era of very difficult commodity pricing as well. But that doesn’t change the fact that this extraordinary $60-billion deposit—obviously, chromite being one of the exciting metals that’s up there—is going to move forward.

But we need to make sure that we do it right. Again, I’m sure that everyone would agree that one of the things we need to do is to work with the communities most directly impacted by this potential development, communities that have never seen any resource development before, which is why we are working so closely on the regional framework agreement and the regional process. That’s the work to—

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

Injured workers

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today we’re joined by a number of doctors who have come to Queen’s Park to support injured workers and a report called Prescription Over-Ruled, which highlights that the WSIB is intentionally and systemically ignoring the advice of medical professionals. They’re here today to question WSIB practices and policies that are a systemic interference with the claims of injured workers.

Will the minister launch an investigation immediately into WSIB practices for injured workers’ claims?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I thank the honourable member for the question—a very, very important question, something we take very, very seriously. I am aware that the report was released this morning. I have a copy of it myself. I think my staff are meeting with the authors of the report, as well as some of the people associated with the report, as we speak. I continue to meet with injured workers.

I want to thank the OFL for this report, because we know it’s critical for people who suffer from injuries to receive the help they need in a timely manner, as quickly as possible. I think we’ve been able to, for the most part, address the issues that are physical in nature. What the report today is outlining—the allegations that are being made—is that often there’s a psychological connection to that. I think we as a society, this House, this government, previous governments and institutions are starting to come to grips with the importance of the psychological aspect of this.

I look forward to examining this report, Speaker, and making sure that I understand it properly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Unfortunately, “timely” means three to five years in Ontario.

Speaker, these WSIB denials are now the subject of a whistle-blower report by the OFL and Ontario injured workers. The doctors are here today to sound the alarm bells and to ensure that necessary steps are taken by the WSIB to stop the re-victimization of injured workers. It’s unconscionable where medical advice of doctors and clinical psychologists is being ignored so that the WSIB can ensure that their claims numbers look good. To be clear, the WSIB is re-victimizing the very workers that it was mandated to help.

Will the minister commit to reviewing the report recommendations, to launching an investigation and to ensuring that the WSIB accepts the independent professional opinions of Ontario’s medical experts?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again to the member for that question. I thought I was clear the first time around; that, absolutely, I will review this report. Every member of this House should review this report. It’s a report that’s being brought forward by an organization that I think a lot of people look to to receive advice when it comes to how things can impact upon working people in the province of Ontario. It’s a report we take very, very seriously.

Whether an inquiry should come as a result of that, Speaker, I think would be pre-judging what is in the report. But I can tell you that I go out of my way to meet with injured workers in this province. I connect with the OFL. I don’t always agree with the OFL, but they understand that; we have an open-door policy.

I look forward to receiving the information that’s in this report and doing the best thing so that injured workers in this province receive the care and the health care that they deserve.

Changement climatique / Climate change

M. John Fraser: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique.

Comme de nombreux Ontariens, les membres de ma communauté sont préoccupés par le changement climatique et par la pollution de gaz à effet de serre. Ils s’inquiètent de la condition du monde dans lequel nos enfants et nos petits-enfants vont grandir si nous ne prenons pas une action forte sur le changement climatique.

Due to a lack of leadership from the previous federal government in this critical challenge, other levels of government in Canada have had to step up to fill this void. More specifically, there has been an unprecedented level of co-operation and collaboration between our government and the government of Quebec.

Can the minister please advise on the status of the co-operation that came out of the joint cabinet meeting in September?

L’hon. Glen R. Murray: Merci à mon collègue d’Ottawa-Sud. Nous travaillons très fort avec le Québec, un partenariat très important pour nous—probablement la plus importante relation dans la fédération pour nous autres. C’est très important parce que nous avons la même économie. L’économie du Québec et l’économie de l’Ontario, ce sont les mêmes affaires, les mêmes secteurs, les mêmes régions bio: le forêt boréale, le fleuve Saint-Laurent, les Grands Lacs. L’impact du changement climatique sur les Québécois et Québécoises est le même que sur les Ontariens et Ontariennes.

Pendant le Cabinet conjoint, nous avons établi ensemble et nous avons discuté notre cible pour 2030. C’est une petite compétition : nous avons une cible de 37 % moins d’émissions qu’en 1990, et le Québec, maintenant, a 37,5 %—

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci. Question?

M. John Fraser: Encore une fois, ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique.

Le ministre a souligné dans sa réponse qu’un aspect essentiel pour avancer sur la lutte contre le changement climatique est l’augmentation de la sensibilisation du public.

I know the minister has been very active in bringing attention to the challenge of climate change and the need for collaboration among all levels of government. With any issue, proper awareness of the challenge is as key as the solution. Climate change is no different.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House on the public awareness component of the MOU and what is being done to raise awareness of this important challenge?

Merci au membre, parce que la collaboration dans notre système fédéral est très importante.

Layoffs

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The Kraft Heinz plant in St. Marys has been a major employer in that community for decades, but yesterday afternoon, we learned the company will close its doors. For the 214 employees who will lose their jobs, this news is absolutely devastating.

My question is this: What will the government do to help them and the people of St. Marys in the days ahead?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This was indeed very disappointing news that came out of St. Marys yesterday. As the member opposite knows, St. Marys is very close to my home in London, and I expect that many of the people who were laid off are in fact constituents of mine. Our first concern is for these workers, for their families affected by the layoffs.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities will be providing training programs to help support workers through these very difficult times. We are monitoring the situation. We will continue working with other levels of government to ensure coordinated service.

I tell you, Speaker, we in the southwest know too well that it is very difficult for communities when things like this happen, and we must be there to support those workers as they transition to jobs of the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, we appreciate the Deputy Premier’s interest and sympathy, but there are a few things we need even more. First, we need an immediate commitment to open an action centre in St. Marys to help the affected employees. That’s what the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has done in similar situations.

Second, we need the government to work co-operatively with the town to attract and retain new employers for the area.

Third, we desperately need an effective manufacturing strategy to restore Ontario’s competiveness and restore hope for those in the sector.

When will the government do these things?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member for bringing this question forward. When something like this happens, our hearts go out to the hard-working employees who have been working very hard. They’re committed to supporting not only their families, but also supporting our economy.

When something like this happens, when layoffs happen, my ministry acts very quickly, through rapid re-employment and training services. In this particular case, again, my ministry—the office manager at the St. Marys plant was informed about the possibilities, and also the facilities which the ministry offers to laid-off workers. We will continue to support the laid-off workers at the St. Marys plant.

Public transit

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Two days ago, the government announced a 30-year deal with a private consortium to maintain the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The value of the privatized maintenance deal is $3.8 billion, almost as much as the cost of building the line itself.

Even though Infrastructure Ontario released several self-promoting press releases on Tuesday, it still refuses to release details that would explain exactly how much control over transit the government has handed over to the private sector for the next three decades.

The private bidders have had this information for almost two years. Why is the minister keeping it from the public?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for the question. It always delights me to have the opportunity to talk about how transformational the Eglinton Crosstown project will be: 19 kilometres of LRT, 25 stops connecting Weston all the way to Scarborough here in the GTHA. It’s a fantastic project.

In fact, what the member opposite is referring to is that just a couple of days ago, this government—through Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx, partnering with the successful project consortium for this landmark infrastructure project, a consortium known as Crosslinx—announced publicly $9.1 billion for a 30-year contract to design, build, finance and maintain. That is a project that came in at $2 billion less than originally anticipated by this government.

That speaks exactly to why it’s so important for us to continue to leverage the innovation and creativity of the private sector. I lo