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

October 4, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Oct-04 (PDF)

L102 - Wed 4 Oct 2017 / Mer 4 oct 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 October 2017 Mercredi 4 octobre 2017

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Introduction of Visitors

Special report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Government advertising

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Endangered species

Energy policies

Health care funding

Tree planting

Highway improvement

Environmental protection

Highway improvement

Social assistance

Indigenous relations

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mid-Autumn Moon Festival

Betsy DeVos

David Hollinger and Doug Gibbons

Cannabis regulation

Down syndrome

Betsy DeVos

Cyprus National Day

Algonquin College

Hispanic Heritage Month

Mid-Autumn Moon Festival

Introduction of Bills

Protecting a Woman’s Right to Access Abortion Services Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 protégeant le droit des femmes à recourir aux services d’interruption volontaire de grossesse

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant le Code des droits de la personne

Personal Injury and Accident Victims Protection Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection des victimes de lésions corporelles et d’accidents

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Hispanic Heritage Month

International trade

Hispanic Heritage Month

International trade

Hispanic Heritage Month

International trade

Visitors

Petitions

Highway improvement

Health care

Sexual violence and harassment

GO Transit

Lyme disease

Elevator maintenance

Criminal justice policies

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Driver licences

Water extraction

GO Transit

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 renforçant la qualité et la responsabilité pour les patients

Adjournment Debate

Long-term care

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Construction Lien Act / Projet de loi 142, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West had finished her presentation. We are therefore now into questions and comments.

The member from Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Good morning, Speaker. Here we are at shortly after 9 o’clock in the morning on a very beautiful September day—

Mr. Mike Colle: October.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: —October day; I’m sorry. I’m still thinking of September. The weather seems like September. I’ll be okay.

I listened carefully to the remarks last night from the member from Windsor West. She made some good points. She did a good presentation. I just wanted to add something: This is going to go to committee, this bill; hopefully sooner than later. I think we’re voting on it later today, to send it to committee. I’m looking forward to rolling up our sleeves—all three parties—and debating this bill.

We’ve gone through a lengthy process of consultation, dealing with the construction industry and experts in the sector, and I just want to say a couple of things here in my limited one minute.

Our new legislation would require surety bonds to be posted on public projects above a certain dollar amount. These bonds are currently used on both public and private projects, but there is no legislation that mandates contractors to post them. By posting mandatory surety bonds, subcontractors and suppliers will be protected and paid in case of a project’s insolvency.

In addition, specific bookkeeping requirements will be set out to better protect subcontractors if the contractor becomes insolvent or can’t pay its debts.

Also, the act is to be kept simple and cost-effective. So our bill is proposing that construction lien claims under $25,000 could be referred to Small Claims Court, so that the subcontractor—the electrician, carpenter or whoever—gets paid as soon as possible.

Again, I look forward to this going to committee. I’m looking forward to debate this morning. I look forward to it being brought back here for third reading after the committee stage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions or comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: I didn’t hear the comments or the speech by the member from Windsor West. I’m sure it was a good speech. However, it is a pleasure to rise here. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak to the prompt-payment bill before the Legislature. I don’t know if I will get the opportunity, so I appreciate the chance here this morning to provide a couple of thoughts.

This is a bill that we have been waiting for for a long time in this Legislature. I believe one of the first meetings that I had after being elected as an MPP was with concerned members of the construction associations who wanted to bring in prompt-payment legislation similar to what we’re debating here today. On a couple of different occasions, we have been this close to getting that legislation done, but prorogation or an election was on the way and—

Mr. Michael Harris: The Liberals squashed it.

Mr. Todd Smith: —the Liberals squashed it, as my friend says.

Here we are today, though, with a new piece of legislation, and it’s my hope that we can actually get this done in time for our small business people. It seems like every time you turn around lately, small business people are under attack from this Liberal government here in Ontario and the Liberal government on Parliament Hill as well.

Our small business people are so important. They are the backbone of our economy in Ontario. They provide the vast majority of jobs. We should be doing what we can to help our small businesses, not currently attacking them or constantly attacking them as we currently are. It seems like every time you turn around, they are being hit with excessive red tape in some new regulation. They’re being hit with a 32% increase in the minimum wage in less than 16 months—which is very, very difficult for small businesses to adjust to—the rising cost of electricity and the rising cost of natural gas, with the cap-and-trade system that’s been brought into place.

It seems like every time a small business person turns around, they’re being attacked by a Liberal government in Ontario or a Liberal government in Ottawa. It’s time that stops. Let’s get this legislation passed into committee.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to commend my colleague, our colleague, the member from Windsor West on her speech on this bill yesterday, which I was in the House in the evening to listen to. It’s one of those bills where folks in here should be shaking their heads that it’s something that hasn’t been done already.

It’s a basic premise around, if you do the work, you do it right, you fulfil your contract, you get paid in a timely manner. We have gone through all of the dos and the don’ts, the pitfalls, the pros, the cons. There are certainly more pros than cons. In a developed and mature economy, you would think that this would be something that would be a given, that those who perform work in the construction sector in our communities would be paid in a timely way. In order to offer that protection that, again, I think should be a given, let’s get this thing done; let’s get it through committee.

We have been critical—both opposition parties have been critical—on the fact that the Liberal government of the past 14 years has not passed anything in this light to address this issue, although they have had ample opportunity to do so. We have had incarnations of this bill that have been put forward, that have been promoted, highly touted. We’ve had meetings. We’ve met with the sectors. We’ve met with the stakeholders. They’re all in favour. They know this is something that has been needed. Yet, the government has essentially played politics with this thing. They have put it on the table, pulled it back off the table, put it back on the table numerous times.

I don’t know what the goal is here, but get it done. This is something that I think has all-party support. It’s stalling economic development. It’s putting small contractors under the gun and putting them at jeopardy of risking their business. Let’s get it done, move ahead, and support our communities.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise this morning to support Bill 142. Before I start my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to respond to the member from Windsor West, I wanted to wish everyone who is celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival from my culture, the Moon Festival, a happy Moon Festival today. Thank you to everybody for doing wonderful things across Ontario in support.

Anyway, I am very, very pleased to support Bill 142. I know the member from Windsor West is passionate about this type of legislation and supporting the worker, particularly for small businesses, and we need to do more.

I’m not sure the member from Prince Edward–Hastings remembers that the Construction Lien Act was first created in 1983. We know who was in government then. That was well over 30 years ago, and 30 years was a long time ago.

The member from Essex was complaining just earlier that it’s taking too long, blah, blah, blah. But, Mr. Speaker, we’ve got to remember the fact that consultation does take time and, more importantly, this particular Construction Lien Act has been the subject of reviews. But, more importantly, you need to talk to people.

This is a very large province. Yes, there have been a lot of changes since 1983, from the construction signs— now technology is involved in construction. It’s a complex issue because it’s not just about the businesses; we are looking at subcontractors and others.

Moving forward, we are looking forward to the passage of this bill. But, more importantly, after this second reading we’re going to go to committee, have more consultation and, again, it will require some time for those public consultations. I am looking forward to supporting and making sure that, when a company does business, they need to pay on time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Windsor West has two minutes.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I appreciate all of the comments from the other members in the House regarding my debate yesterday on the Construction Lien Amendment Act.

I’m going to speak about the last member who spoke—Scarborough–Agincourt, someone who I respect deeply even though she’s on the other side of the House. She made a comment that consultation does take time. She mentioned how this legislation has been around in its current form for 30 years. It shouldn’t take 30 years to make sure that workers who do the work and do it within the terms of a contract actually get paid for the work that they’ve done. I’m great with consultation. I think that it’s important that we talk to the stakeholders.

We see far too often that the government side, who says consultation takes time, rushes bills through, rams through legislation, without doing enough consultation. So I think they should take their own advice and sometimes slow down.

But it’s important to note that, although consultation takes time, in 2013 their current Minister of Transportation brought forward legislation around this—four years ago. It was actually his own caucus, it was the Liberal government, that quashed his proposed legislation. So they had an opportunity in 2013 to support one of their own members, and they didn’t.

Then, in 2014, my colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh brought forward a motion that was supported—it passed—talking about this very thing again. So, three years ago the member from Windsor–Tecumseh brought this up. It was supported in the House and it went nowhere after that. In fact, he went a step farther and said that when you have a project like the Herb Gray Parkway that was grossly mismanaged by the government at the time—they allowed a Spanish consortium to take off, back out of the country and not pay our subcontractors and our suppliers. They should never have gotten another contract until they actually paid the workers and the suppliers.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I come from a construction family. I was born in November 1953. My dad started a construction company in March 1953, so my whole life, I grew up in a construction family. My dad started with, I think, one backhoe, then maybe one employee. Over the years he built his company into what was one of Canada’s largest construction companies. I am happily familiar with the industry. I actually spent a few years myself working for that family company.

I came to really admire the people who work in that industry: people who take such pride in their work, people who work very hard both physically and mentally, people who work together, because the way the construction industry works is, every construction company actually works with a lot of other companies who do part of that job. It’s really important that we have rules in place that protect those various companies that contribute to the construction of a building or a road or a bridge or whatever, and that’s why I’m really happy to speak to this bill today.

The construction industry is huge in Ontario. It is a very large and important industry, with 400,000 jobs in construction today, Speaker; that’s 400,000 families being supported by the construction industry. Of course, much of that construction is government construction, government investments in infrastructure creating many, many jobs. Some 7% of our GDP is in the construction industry. So we need to make sure that our construction laws are up-to-date, and that they reflect today’s realities. It’s only fair, Speaker, and it’s important that we get this right, because it is such a vital industry.

I’m going to speak a little bit about that consultation process. It has taken time to get this right, but we are at a point where I would say that there is a broad consensus that we are doing the right thing, that this is the right step to take. I would say that in this House we have a very happy situation of violent agreement—violent agreement, Speaker—that this is the right step to take, and also in the industry there is support.

Last fall, the government met with 25 key stakeholder groups and an expert advisory group in the construction industry to hear their feedback. We continued to work with that advisory group throughout the drafting of the legislation. In addition, the government requested feedback on Bill 142 in the summer and received a number of submissions with recommendations on how to improve the legislation, because we always want to make it as good as it can possibly be.

The review convened more than 30 meetings, attended by over 60 key interested stakeholders. There were many lively and spirited discussions, as one would hope with a bill of such importance. We also received over 70 written submissions, and the Attorney General met individually with over 30 different stakeholder groups. So we have done our homework to make sure that this bill is as strong as it can possibly be. It has taken us 34 years to get to this point, and until now—and this is an important point, Speaker—no one has been able to achieve consensus on these proposed changes, and now we have achieved consensus.

We do have a broad consensus on three core issues of the review: that we are maintaining and modernizing the lien and holdback process; that we are establishing a new system for prompt payment; and that we are creating a targeted adjudication system to resolve disputes. There is, as I say, a broad consensus that these are the right steps to take.

Let me just read a few quotes from people who are supporting this. OSWCA, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association, says that “Striking the Balance (the report) makes a number of recommendations that will (on paper) significantly improve the construction payment and construction lien processes in Ontario, if they are fully implemented.”

“The Surety Association of Canada enthusiastically supports the transition to digital bonding and has been instrumental in facilitating this transition. From a technical standpoint, there’s good news. The technology to create, record, execute and deliver electronic bonds is readily accessible and there are a number of commercially available electronic surety systems.”

Again from the Surety Association of Canada: “We sincerely appreciate your resolve in taking on this complex but critical initiative that is long overdue and will have a profoundly positive impact on the construction industry and the economy of our province. Again, I pledge the full support of the Surety Association of Canada.”

“The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers ... appreciates the opportunity to submit commentary to support the review and enhancement of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act....

“Minister, OSPE wishes to acknowledge your effort to ensure the proposed legislation is fair, balanced, and reflects a diverse array of perspectives by thoroughly consulting with industry and stakeholder groups.”

Then they go on, and I’m very happy that they acknowledge the work of the “staff, the ministry, and Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel for their thoughtful work on this significant piece of legislation. In the months and years ahead, Ontario’s CLA will prove critical to our ability to capitalize on historic foreign, federal, and domestic investment in the brick and mortar projects that enable our provincial economy to flourish.”

The Ontario Road Builders’ Association says it is “pleased to see the final report of the review of the Construction Lien Act and commends BLG and the ministry on this comprehensive work.”

The TTC—Speaker, I could go on and on with positive quotes supporting the assertion that there is broad support for this. And it’s not just industry that supports this; there is support from labour as well.

I would like to read this into the record, just to remind people that even within this chamber this is a bill on which we have broad agreement.

The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington said the following: “I think we were at a place where we had a bill that industry was satisfied with, that the members of this Legislature are satisfied with. Although there are some improvements that could be made, it’s a good bill.” It’s not always that I find myself in agreement with the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, but this is one of those times where I completely agree with him.

We had further support from the NDP critic, the member for Timmins–James Bay. He said, “I just want to indicate that it’s something that we, as New Democrats, support. We have been pushing for it and we look forward for this process to continue ... and we can do it justice when it comes to prescribing a bill that is prescriptive, that is clear, that allows a mechanism to work that’s not going to be too onerous and that we have some sort of enforcement mechanism ... that works for people.” Again, I am in complete agreement with the member for Timmins–James Bay.

But there are other quotes that I would like to remind members of the House of. The member for Timmins–James Bay said, “I want to indicate that we have no interest, as a caucus, of holding up this debate for long.” So it sounds—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Could you repeat that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will repeat that: “I want to indicate that we have no interest, as a caucus, of holding up this debate”—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Then let’s negotiate—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay, stop the clock. The member from Renfrew: You’d like to sit up here, or what?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Let the minister speak.

Go ahead.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry said, “We’re hoping that we don’t see this bill die again. The government talks about the need for this. The best way of showing that need is actually to move ahead with it and to see that this is one of the priorities.”

We have allowed the debate to continue when we’ve reached 6.5 hours of debate, but this bill has seen more than nine hours of debate. I think it’s time to move this to committee, so I move that the question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Deputy Premier has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period.

Vote deferred.

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi et la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate of what the government has proposed as the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act.

Speaker, as you know, over the summer a number of us sat on the finance committee. I believe—I’m not sure if you and I were in Hamilton together or not. We heard directly from those in our communities and those impacted right across southern Ontario. Given the impacts we heard repeatedly indicated at the committee table, I really feel that it’s important to put some of those issues and impacts here today.

Speaker, I’ll start where much of the discussion has focused over the course of this debate:

—the, of course, serious impact of a 30% wage hike over a year and a half;

—this government’s refusal to provide an independent economic analysis to verify those impacts; and

—this government’s use of the minimum wage escalation as a cornerstone to drive negative reaction towards opposition.

Time and again at committee we heard the earnest pleas of small business owners indicating their concern for the rapid pace at which this government is proposing to force this 30% minimum wage hike onto their shoulders. It’s a weight that many admitted, regrettably, they will have difficulty in bearing.

I think of Little Short Stop Stores presenting in the committee hearings out in Kitchener–Waterloo. Little Short Stops may not be familiar to those outside of our area, but to those in Kitchener–Waterloo, Guelph and Cambridge, the Little Short Stops are mainstays of our communities—or what my kids like to call the “treat store”—a third-generation, family-owned chain of convenience stores providing everything you’d expect from your favourite corner store for almost 50 years, with 20 stores and over 230 employees.

As co-owner Jamie Arnold told us, Little Short Stops are not opposed to a minimum wage reaching $15. They did question, “[H]owever, what would you do if you found out that your mortgage was going to increase 32% over the next 18 months? Your income hasn’t changed, most other expenses are increasing roughly with inflation, yet your single biggest expense is going to....” He then added, “Well, my mortgage is about to increase $1.5 million in the form of payroll costs.”

As to what Little Short Stops plan to do to mitigate that hike, Mr. Arnold was clear:

“Step one: We will cut hours in our stores. Cutting hours is not creating jobs; cutting hours is cutting people. The first hours that will be cut will be our 24-hour shifts. Secondly, we’ll be forced to automate.” We already see that happening now; just go to a local McDonald’s or even to a movie theater.

They’ll have to look at health benefits: “We have a benefit plan that covers dental, drugs and health benefits that insures about 150 people as we speak. We simply cannot afford this ... plan.”

So that’s really what we’re talking about here: a 50-year-old, family-owned business forced to make choices that will hurt the very people this government has indicated they want to help with Bill 148.

The result, of course, is fewer jobs, fewer hours and fewer stores. Mr. Arnold’s request at the committee was simple: “[I]f we are going to a $15 minimum wage, give us more time to get there. Eighteen months is dramatic and crushing. We believe a fair solution would be to continue the inflation-adjusted”—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a little loud over there. Don’t look behind you. It’s right in front of you.

Hon. David Zimmer: Pay attention, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Oh, we’ve got a coach. Thank you. I don’t need any backseat drivers. Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

Continue.

Mr. Michael Harris: Thank you. I do hope that the other side is paying much attention to this because I don’t think that they seemed to actually be paying attention during committee. We heard committee for two weeks right across the province. They said they’d be listening, but I’m just not sure if they actually did.

Where was I here? He talked about 18 months being dramatic and crushing. The same solution the Premier herself believed in just a few short months ago—in fact, it was just January that the Premier stated it very clearly. That’s likely, because as we’ve often heard from the Financial Accountability Office and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the impact of this 18-month race to $15 will be 50,000 minimum wage jobs. Of course, as I noted, we heard these same concerns at every stop of the committee.

I do remember the Premier saying—when she was asked back as early as January or February of last year, if she was going to agree to the $15 minimum wage call, she said, “We’ve got a predictable plan or a predictable format already in place. We need to give those employers predictability.” She said no at that time. But, of course, do you know what’s happening next June? An election, of course: We know that that’s what really this is all about.

Back in Kitchener, of course, it was later echoed in Hamilton when the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters told us “a sudden escalation without corresponding growth in corporate revenues and profit could have significant unintended consequences, including loss of employment, loss of paid hours and a decrease in hiring under-represented groups in the workforce such as women and youth who typically start careers at those positions.”

That’s why we continue to call for that independent economic analysis, a very simple yet vital request given the concerns we heard and one that there should be no reason to ignore. Really, what is the fear from the government side? If the government is right, and the analysis shows that this rapid rise will help people and won’t impact job numbers, then we move ahead with blinders off. On the other hand, if the government is wrong and Toronto-Dominion, the Financial Accountability Officer and others are right about the unbearable impacts and job implications, then you go back to the drawing board, of course.

I mean, even out in BC, the NDP have seen their way through to a more stable pace of increase.

The question remains as to, what is the government really afraid of? Could it be because they know once they open the cover of this book, the story will speak to the further implications we heard at committee of the series of other measures Bill 148 proposes to create “fair workplaces”? As the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce told us in Kitchener, “While the media concentrates on the $15 an hour, and advocates of this bill concentrate on this, this is only the tip of the iceberg that will cause irreversible damage to Ontario’s economy.

“The more dramatic impact is the other 173 changes to the workplace environment outside of the minimum wage increase.”

Of course, we heard from businesses concerned with the emergency leave proposals. “Let’s look at the impact of a few items on ... businesses,” as the Cambridge chamber stated, “such as the personal emergency leave making it mandatory for 10 eligible days off, two of which must be paid, and the employer is no longer able to request medical verification. The costs to large employers would vary from $1.25 million per year with 1,000 employees to $11 million” a year for employees roughly around 9,000. This is an enormous change to employers.

As a local coffee shop owner wrote me, “As it currently stands, we cannot allow employees to collect this benefit after only eight days of employment ... that will bankrupt small business ... We had 356 sick days recorded by our employees in 2016.” That’s just one coffee shop. While Bill 148 would see the employer paying out for about 70 of those days, the curious thing is that this provision is completely absent from the government’s Changing Workplaces Review recommendations the Liberals have used as the basis, in fact, for Bill 148.

I do also want to mention, on that note, there were other deputations, of course. One that I think was glaring was that of one of our largest employers, Magna. I want to read a bit of Magna’s written submission. Of course, it didn’t get an opportunity to present at committee.

They go on by saying they “are one of Ontario’s largest and most successful private sectors employers, operating both unionized and non-union facilities. Magna’s annual payroll in Ontario is in the range of $1 billion, and we invest approximately $320 million ... annually into the Ontario economy in terms of capital investment and research.

“We also consider ourselves a very responsible employer. All of our employment and compensation practices meet and in most cases, are well in excess of Ontario’s regulatory requirements. We are proud to provide our employees with a competitive livelihood—and by sharing in the profits of our organization, each Magna team member is an important and valued stakeholder in our company.

“Having said all this, for the first time in our 60-year history we find ourselves in the very untenable position of questioning whether we will be able to continue to operate at historical levels in this province. Ontario has increasingly become a very challenging global jurisdiction in which to conduct business, and the recent policy direction of the Ontario government adds further to the already heavy regulatory burdens that exist here. These challenges include:

“—uncompetitive hydro costs;

“—increased payroll and pension costs;

“—cap-and-trade policies; and

“—some of the highest personal income tax rates in the G7.”

They go on by saying, “We believe the tipping point for Magna may well be the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, the proposed labour and employment law reforms that are extremely one-sided in terms of their scope and impact on the Ontario business community.”

That’s a statement by Magna, and I think it’s gone unheard, clearly, by this government. Knowing that the compounding regulatory burden, high hydro—all these things are forcing jobs not into the province, but out.

I look forward to finishing my two-minute rebuttal. Thank you for your time.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to respond to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga. I was part of the debate last night. I did a 10-minute hit, and I think it’s important to reiterate some of the points that I made last night.

This is about what type of a society and economy we want to live in and what our role is in facilitating that, and regulating it of course. Rightfully, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga referenced that we are in a globally competitive economy, but who, in fact, are we competing against?

At this point in time, auto manufacturers can set up in Ciudad Juárez and pay their workers $2.50 an hour. Ciudad Juárez has an enormous amount of multinational corporations that have set up there for that reason, to be able to pay some of the lowest wages on the planet.

There is also a correlating demographic, or data set, that shows the rate of crime, specifically murder. Ciudad Juárez is one of the highest murder capitals on the planet. When you lower your standard of living, when you lower a person’s ability to earn a good wage and to live a decent life and when you lower the standard for your social services, it has a domino effect on a society. You’ve got drug cartels running that area and running rampant.

Is that what we want to compete with? Or do we focus, as an economy, on the good things that we’ve built together—our health care, our infrastructure, our education system—and focus on those as strategic incentives to entice business to come here? I think we can do that and I think that’s a better and more progressive path.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you for the opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes on this particular bill.

I just want to relate some of the conversations I’ve been having. Yes, I’ve met with a number of businesses and I’ve met with chambers—in some cases, they’re not happy—and we made some commitments.

But, Speaker, let me be clear: I spoke just recently to a fast food organization with multiple locations. Here is the discussion that happened over about two or three months, when I first met with them. They understand where government is going, they understand the social fabric of this province and of this country, and they’ve asked me to relay that we committed to some offsets to help the transition. He said, “That’s all I would ask for.”

Even more importantly, one of the grocery chains in my riding—I met with the owner about a month or a month and a half ago. It was his approach to me. He said, “Lou, I’m sure you folks are dealing with the fair minimum wage, that piece of legislation.” I said, “Of course.” I’m going to try to paraphrase what he told me. He has a couple hundred employees; it’s a big chain.

Speaker, what I would say to you is that he said, “What don’t people understand about disposable income? Disposable income is what the minimum wage is basically all about. People are going to spend that money as they get it. It’s going to be good for the economy. I might sell an extra loaf of bread”—or whatever that might be—“because now people can afford it.”

Frankly, he surprised me. But, frankly, I asked him, “Did you do the math?” His math was that if he raised food prices by one cent, he’d be able to accommodate the minimum wage requirement and he’d be able to give a raise to the folks who are already at that—plus it will leave some money for him.

So, there are some challenges. We’re dealing with them. Let’s get this done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We all understand the need to get to $15, and all of the economists who have weighed in on this and all of the organizations continue to tell us, it’s the speed at which this government wants to get us there.

You look at our own Financial Accountability Officer, who told us this is going to cost us, at a minimum, 50,000 jobs. We hear from the TD Bank, who have told us that it’s an 80,000 to 90,000 job loss.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. Why are people yelling across at each other and talking across the floor? The member from Barrie, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, and of course our favourite member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, have talked across the table. I would suggest that you go through the Chair, and if I hear any more—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): And we’re going to step it up for any backseat drivers, too. Okay? Thanks.

Continue.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I was talking about the Financial Accountability Office, which has given us a paper that told us 50,000 people are going to lose their job in Ontario. TD Bank came out and told us between 80,000 and 90,000 people are going to lose their job in Ontario. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says it’s 185,000. They all use a different timeline, which is why there are different numbers. But Speaker, all they’re really talking about is not whether people are going to lose their job, but how many tens of thousands of people are going to lose their job because of this government.

I don’t know how you’re going to look those people in the face in January—the tens of thousands.

Last week, when I gave my speech on this, I quoted Rahn Plastics in North Bay. I quoted a young woman who said she’s already had her hours cut back because her boss was worried about how he’s going to make payroll come January, so he’s starting now. She’s already worried that she’s not going to have any hours come January because of this.

I hear what this government is saying, but Speaker, it’s no good if you don’t have a job.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a pleasure to take my place and speak on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

We’ve been talking about this for a long time. Andrea, our leader for the NDP, has been out, our caucus members have been out talking about the need to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. It’s nothing new to the areas that we have been speaking to, and that’s across this province. It’s the message that we’ve been carrying through.

Yes, we have heard from employers who are going to be having some difficulties, but if you bring this in without the supports that small businesses are absolutely going to need, then the challenges will be there.

My friend just spoke in regard to the job losses that are going to be happening across this province. Well, if I recall, in the last platform that the Conservatives were bringing forward, they were going to cut 100,000 jobs across this province without the increase anyway. So if I’m going to look for advice, I’m going to look for a concrete plan that we’ve put forward.

Businesses are going to need help. They’re going to need lower hydro prices in order to survive. They’re going to need job-incentive programs. They’re going to need tax cuts in order to build their business so that they can make the changes that they need in order to accommodate the economies that will be coming in the future.

In my area, many of the employers are already paying their employees $15 an hour because it’s difficult. I’m in a different challenge. In my area, particularly in the northern communities, there’s plenty of work there. They’re looking for labour. They’re trying to pull them in. They’ve got jobs for them within the forestry sector, in the mining sector, and in the service sector. They’re having a hard time getting people to come to northern Ontario, where there are good jobs. That’s some of the challenges that we’re facing in my area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Harris: I want to thank all those members who chimed in on this one.

Having only 10 minutes, I want to cap off with the fact that the government did go out and commission this lengthy workplaces review. It was funny, after you read it all, how many recommendations that were in the report either didn’t make it into the bill or were frankly ignored. The biggest one was the minimum wage increase. The panel wasn’t given that parameter off the top to review. When employers or labour groups wanted to provide feedback, those panelists said, “That is beyond the scope of our review” and would not allow that.

Of course, there’s no recommendation for the card-based certification plan that will see businesses automatically certified upon 50% of employees signing union cards. In fact, review recommendation 144 specifically states, “The secret ballot process for certification should be preserved,” provided that protections are put in place to remedy potential unlawful employer interference. As Magna noted in their submission, “a secret ballot vote is a basic principle upon which our democracy is based.”

Also, a lot of other organizations noted the sharing of employee contact lists with prospective unions upon 20% support. As one employer wrote to me, “Does the push for a union by 20% of staff trump the privacy concerns of the remaining 80%?” Given the very real privacy questions employers noted at committee and through submissions, I look forward to the government’s answers to address the potential imbalance and legal implications of these proposals.

Massive, sweeping labour changes here in the province, two weeks of committee, a lot of listening, but not a lot of action, frankly, from the government for what was heard. Thank you for your time—

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It is our pleasure today to continue debate on Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act. We want to make sure that in this case, in this bill, we have a really fulsome debate, because it did take this government a long time to get to this place.

We had the labour minister set up the Employment Standards Act, where they had many, many consultations and then they came up, obviously, with their legislation. Then they toured the province in the summertime. Granted, I know we’re not sitting in the House during the summer, but we were working in our ridings. I think a lot of people felt that they were on vacation, so the type of consultation—they really had to work around their schedules to make sure they could contribute to this bill during the summer. A lot of people had to do a lot of finagling around their summer vacations and their schedules to do that.

But in the end, it got done. The government did do a consultation in London specifically. There were many people who came and presented. Of course, there were labour groups and there were advocates—poverty advocates, housing activists—coming out to let people know that we need to change the minimum wage. People cannot live on the wages they have presently. This government did listen; in that particular part of it, they did listen and they changed the minimum wage to $15.

Of course, there’s debate between the Conservatives on whether or not this is the right thing to do, what we should do and how fast we should do it. One of the members recently spoke up and talked about how we are going to be losing jobs if the minimum wage is increased. But he seems to forget that under his leader Mr. Hudak, in 2014, they wanted to cut 100,000 jobs from the province, good-paying jobs that had benefits and retirement packages. They wanted to cut those jobs out of the province. When we hear that the Conservative are concerned that we’re going to lose jobs, it’s ironic, because they wanted to cut 100,000 jobs during the last election.

When this bill was first presented, I got a phone call. I got a phone call from Fanshawe College, from the broadcasting department there. A student reporter called me. At that point, we hadn’t looked at the bill. We hadn’t examined it, we hadn’t reviewed the whole entirety of it, so I couldn’t really express to her what would happen around student wages. That was something they were very concerned about. So I said, “We’ll have to look at the bill when it comes out.” Sure enough, I said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if that won’t be in the bill, but I can’t confirm it at this time.”

Now I can call her back. She hasn’t called me to follow up, but I can certainly call her back and let her know that there is still a two-tier wage in place in this bill, paying servers in bars and restaurants substantially less than everyone else. Of course we know many part-time jobs, when students are attending college and university, are usually in the service industry. So it is tough.

We know that students are struggling to make ends meet: rents are expensive; hydro is expensive, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin pointed out; and since this Wynne government has been in power, there’s been an increase in precarious work. There has been an increase in people working multiple jobs just to pay their bills.

I was speaking to someone just yesterday afternoon. The young woman here said that she’s going to be leaving Queen’s Park because she has another job in a restaurant in Toronto—and the member from Algoma–Manitoulin was with me at the time. She was expressing that she had to work two jobs to pay the bills. She works at the Spaghetti Factory, very hard, and then she comes here and she works in the dining room in the restaurant area, in the service part, at Queen’s Park. She said, “You know, I have to work these two jobs to get by.”

Having a minimum wage in that industry—these are the people who we are trying to help lift up out of poverty—to try to make their lives financially secure so that they can feel that they can continue to have a roof over their head and feed their children. So having the two-tier system is a disappointment when it comes to looking at the labour bill, and there are other things that are missing under this bill as well.

When we’re talking about jobs, you can’t help but think about the CAMI auto workers in Ingersoll who are on strike right now, because they are striking not just for themselves; they are striking for job security. One of the biggest premises that they are talking about is that they want to be the lead plant so that they always have one shift more than Mexico, because that will guarantee that the work stays here. These are good-paying jobs. They are jobs with benefits. I know single moms who work at CAMI, and they can afford to put their kids through school, have a mortgage and buy a car.

But if we keep deteriorating the auto industry in this province, there won’t be good jobs like this anymore.

I went to the picket line, and I saw the workers who were there. They are out there every day, 24 hours a day, in shifts, fighting for job security. They are not just protecting their jobs, as I mentioned before, but they are also protecting and fighting for what the result will be: the feeder jobs that come in to CAMI, the seats and any other car parts, that rely on making these products for CAMI. It’s a trickle effect: They are going to have job security and so are those feeder plants. So it’s thousands—literally, thousands—of jobs throughout Ontario.

It’s really important, when we talk about this legislation—what’s missing from that? We have CAMI that is on strike, fighting for job security. Some of the pieces that aren’t in this legislation speak to not giving workers the opportunity to have a union in the workplace.

What’s missing is that there’s no card certification for all sectors of workers in this legislation. I mentioned before that students, interns and liquor servers aren’t brought into parity with the minimum wage. There are no real paid sick days for personal emergency leaves. There’s no sectoral bargaining for every sector. There’s no explicit protection for employees from reprisals during the bargaining-unit-organizing campaign period. There’s no meaningful definition of “employer” or a mechanism to enforce that employees aren’t misclassified as “independent contractors.”

So here we have the CAMI auto workers fighting for job security, making sure that, when our kids grow up, there will be places for them to get good-paying jobs and also have diversity in our job economy. Because we don’t want just tech jobs. We don’t want just manufacturing jobs. We don’t want just farming and agriculture jobs. We want diversity. We want to make sure that we keep all those things in Ontario, because we know that, when an industry is struggling, there’s a domino effect throughout.

So having diversity and making sure that we keep our auto sector strong, cultivating our tech industry and building that up—we even want to make sure that, in the north, we have job security for the Ring of Fire. We have been fighting for that. What a game changer that would be, if there was the Ring of Fire in the north, to have that diversity in natural resources.

So, Speaker, it’s not just the CAMI auto workers that we are saying need job security and need job protection. We think that everyone throughout Ontario should be experiencing and having the benefit of going to work every day, being able to make a living working 40 hours, and coming home and being able to support their family. When you can’t do that, there’s a serious problem, because then you have the haves and the have-nots, and that’s no way to have a healthy society.

The member from Windsor-Essex talked about the society we want to build and the society we want to build for the future for our children. We acknowledge there are many people who are disadvantaged because they can’t find work, for many reasons. Those things have to change. We have to make sure we open the door so that we have good-paying jobs for everyone who is looking, and then we have to make sure we build those opportunities for everyone to have the same level playing field when they access a job, and make sure that it’s a safe work environment for everyone as well.

I look forward to further debate on this bill. I hope the government is going to allow a robust debate and exchange of ideas and not just the Conservatives focusing on one part of this bill. There is so much more to this bill to make sure that when you go to work, you get equal pay for the job that you’re doing to the person beside you. Equal pay for equal work.

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

Hon. Dipika Damerla: You know, Speaker, after 14 years of Liberal good governance and good public policy, I am pleased to stand up and defend yet another excellent bill, a bill that is about fairness, a bill that is about sharing Ontario’s economic prosperity.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding, Bill 148 has been embraced by my constituents. Whether it is on Lolita avenue, where I have all of these rental buildings with a lot of newcomers who live there—I have canvassed door to door in those buildings, and I can tell you this: When I tell them that we are raising the minimum wage, all I hear is, “When does it happen? When does it kick in?”

Here is the interesting thing. I have also received my share of calls from business, and it has never been about the minimum wage, because most of the businesses in my riding say that they are already paying the minimum wage. But there had been some misinformation around scheduling, some misunderstanding.

When I was able to sit down across the table and explain to them what the intention of the bill was, whether it was sick leave, paid sick leave, whether it was around how you don’t need the doctor’s certificate anymore if you’re off sick, whether it was around scheduling—once I sat and explained to them, they went away saying it’s a fairly reasonable business proposal that we have put forward.

I think the thing that gives me the most confidence is that this morning and yesterday afternoon, I heard the PCs saying that this is all terrible, and then I heard the NDP saying we are not going far enough. So when I hear one opposition party say that we’re going too far and the other opposition party saying we are not going far enough, I get the sense that we are hitting just the sweet spot.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to actually stand and make comment on Bill 148. This is the bill that amends the Employment Standards Act. I only have a couple of minutes, so I want to hit the highlights of what I have really heard all summer as this bill went out in committee, but also as I went around and spoke to my business owners, the employers in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

We have heard the reports from the Financial Accountability Officer of 50,000 job losses associated—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minimum.

Ms. Laurie Scott: —minimum—with increasing the minimum wage to $15 so quickly. I think it’s the speed with which this is going on. I have a lot of small businesses; 95% of them are the job creators in our area. The chamber in Haliburton did its own study, and they figure over 200 job losses just in the Haliburton county area. Now, they are very concerned, the businesses there. They are very seasonal. The fish and chips spot, Baked and Battered, wrote letters to the editor. They said they work at a loss all winter, but they keep their employees full time because they want them to have full-time jobs.

They say, “I’m not going to be able to stay open this winter.” In fact, I think they are officially announcing that.

Their employees are devastated. When I spoke to them, they realized that—up in Haliburton county especially, it’s very seasonal—their employers run at a loss in the wintertime to keep them employed, and they appreciate that. You get that from restaurant owners, especially up in the seasonal areas, but all across the riding.

Really, when the government says they hit the right spot, I would say the government is actually harming the people it purports to help by doing this increase so quickly. You have to be very, very cautious of that balance.

That’s all the time I have, but I hope to go on later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: My team always prepares some footnotes and articles for me, and this one is so appropriate this morning. I want to highlight a sawmill, the White River sawmill: “The lumber mill took on the challenge laid down by Resolute Forest Products, who donated a” full “railcar of lumber after Hurricane Harvey ravaged the city.” What White River did is they sent out $20,000 worth of lumber to help out the communities that have been devastated. That’s the CEO of that company, Frank Dottori. The mill is privately owned. It’s operated by Pic Mobert First Nation and the White River Economic Development Corp. A big shout-out to them for having done that.

Here’s the other problem in White River: In that community, you have restaurants, you have hotels, you have grocery stores, and because of the success of this company and the recent success of the new mine that is opening in that community, most of the businesses that are there are already paying or looking to attract employees at $15 an hour. They won’t be able to attract anybody else to come into the community. One of their biggest challenges that they have is, “Where are we going to put these people?” They have housing shortages.

The point I’m trying to make is, when you are bringing in the $15—which has been a consistent message from the NDP for a very long time—you have to bring in all the other programs which will help small business, which will help the grocery store, which will help that hotel find the workers that they need, which will, hopefully, build their economy, which, luckily, they are.

But if we keep throwing sticks in their wheels with higher hydro bills, further taxation on them and always looking at creating hardship for them in growing their economies, we’re going to be back here debating other bills at another time. There are opportunities here to really let it grow. Let it grow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’m pleased to stand in support of Bill 148 at this time. As I have said before, there have been people quoted on TV. A young woman who has two degrees, who is working three part-time jobs, still has to live with her parents. She said she would be able to, with the raise in the minimum wage, probably give up one, maybe two of those jobs and search for work in her chosen field. She might be able to move out of her parents’ place and have a life of her own. I think there are a lot of people who are like that.

This morning on Breakfast Television—there has been a study done about how much money it takes to thrive—not just to live, but to thrive—if you live in the GTA, particularly more in downtown Toronto. The amount is $50,000 to $70,000 in order to have proper housing, some kind of entertainment, some kind of good diet—$50,000 to $70,000. The people who make minimum wage right now make about $21,000, if they have 40 full hours a week.

This is ridiculous. It’s time for us to change that. People have the right to have a decent life in Ontario, in Canada. We are not a Third World country. We need to pay people properly. I fully endorse this bill. In here, some of the opposition stand up and say that they’re okay with the minimum wage, but they want it to come in more slowly. If you look in press releases and things like that in their own ridings, it is not what they say.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to start by acknowledging the speakers—Mississauga East–Cooksville, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Algoma–Manitoulin and the member from Barrie—for their comments on this debate.

There have been labour groups and labour activists talking to members of this House. I’m sure the Conservatives have met with them. I know the Liberals have, as well as the NDP. They’ve been talking about changing the minimum wage for a very, very long time. So it has been in the works; the discussions have been there for a few years. Yes, it’s going to happen quickly, but I don’t think it’s come as a surprise.

As I mentioned before, the Employment Standards Act had held consultations, I think for almost a year—short of a year—about the very issues in the labour market that needed to be changed. Some of the legislation that’s here is doing a little better in the workplace. It’s certainly helping the workers.

As the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville talked about, by communicating to businesses what’s in the bill and how it works, I think more people would be at ease. There is a contentious portion in the bill about the $15 and the rapid speed that it’s coming, but the member from Algoma–Manitoulin makes good points in the sense that we have to give incentives for employers in order to maybe offset that increase.

One legislation that’s coming up in the House is the Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, so maybe there are other areas where we can help businesses continue to employ people in the community. We know that small businesses are the heart of our—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. I’ve got a standing conversation with three people going on when someone’s speaking. Why can’t you take it outside? Why do you have to yell from four seats over and talk when you can go sit beside each other? I don’t get it.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t need any comments from the minister, either.

Okay.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Barrie likes to get in on it, too. I think it’s going to slowly go towards severe measures. I’ve just about had it.

Finish up. Thanks.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I know this side of the House respects the rules. When we speak, we shouldn’t be back-talking to the Speaker. We should be listening and then just debating our bills, because that’s what we’re here to do.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 148, the labour bill.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1008 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislature the president and chief executive officer of Ontario Shores, Karim Mamdani, and Andrea Marshall and Chris Bovie from his excellent communications staff. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: In honour of Mental Illness Awareness Week, we have the CEOs of Ontario’s four mental health hospitals visiting Queen’s Park today. Please join me in welcoming Catherine Zahn, president and CEO of the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health; Karim Mamdani, president and CEO of Ontario Shores; George Weber, president and CEO of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre; and Carol Lambie, the president and CEO of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

Mr.

Norm Miller: I’d like to introduce staff from the Ontario Forest Industries Association: Jamie Lim, Lauren McBride and Ian Dunn; as well as Erik Holmstrom from Weyerhaeuser, chair of the OFIA; Dana Shaw from Shaw lumber, a family-run company that has operated in this province since 1847; Ailbe Prendiville from Kenora Forest Products; Marc Pinette and Sylvain Levesque from Georgia-Pacific; Malcolm Cockwell and Greg Stafford from Haliburton Forest; Roger Barber and Georjann Morriseau from Resolute Forest Products; Dan Bowes from Columbia Forest Products—they took me on a tour this summer; Tom Darechuk from Longlac and Nakina Lumber Inc.; and Jamie McRae from McRae Lumber Co.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d also like to welcome the OFIA here today, as well as the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, something they have in common.

Mr. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to introduce some guests of mine who are in the east lobby today: Mrs. Balwinder Sinha, who is my first cousin and a very renowned doctor in her region in India; and Jagwinder Kaur Deol, another cousin of mine, who is visiting us from the USA, along with her husband, Manjit Singh Deol. Mr. Deol is an engineer and a retired wing commander from the Indian Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend them a very warm welcome to the Legislature. I am sure that they will enjoy the question period and the hopefully pleasant exchange back and forth between the members.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Mae Vaivods and Debbie Noble, from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, in the west gallery. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: First: happy mental health week. On this note, I would like to welcome Dr. Catherine Zahn, president and CEO of CAMH; Karim Mamdani, president and CEO of Ontario Shores; George Weber, president and CEO of the Royal Ottawa; and Carol Lambie, president and CEO of Waypoint. They’re making their way to the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: On behalf of my colleague the MPP for Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, I am happy to acknowledge that there is family of page Michael Arruda here today: his parents, Helene and Jesse Arruda, and grandparents Michael and Mary McConell. They are, I think, in the Speaker’s gallery, if not the public gallery, this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would also like to welcome to Queen’s Park today, from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, here with the OFIA: Dana Shaw from Shaw lumber and Jamie McRae from McRae Lumber.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to welcome members from Professional Engineers Ontario. Please welcome Bob Dony, who’s the president of PEO; Dave Brown, president-elect of PEO; Darla Campbell, who is the PEO government liaison committee chair; and, of course, everyone’s friend, Howard Brown, is in the House. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Today’s page captain is Charlotte Sellner. With her today in the members’ gallery is her mother, Lori Marshall; her father, Robert Sellner; aunts Janet Lala, Yvonne Griggs and Mary Becker; uncle Andrew Griggs; and cousin Alison Griggs. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon.

Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Forestry Industries Association staff today, with Jamie Lim, president and CEO; Lauren McBride and Ian Dunn; as well as members of their board who are spread between the east and west gallery this morning: Erik Holmstrom from Weyerhaeuser and chair of OFIA; Dana Shaw from Shaw lumber, a family-run company that has operated in this province since 1847; Ailbe Prendiville from Kenora Forest Products; Marc Pinette and Sylvain Levesque from Georgia-Pacific; Malcolm Cockwell and Greg Stafford from Haliburton Forest; Roger Barber and Georjann Morriseau from Resolute Forest Products; Dan Bowes from Columbia Forest Products; Tom Darechuk from Longlac and Nakina Lumber Inc.; and Jamie McCrae from McRae Lumber Company.

Thank you very much for joining us at Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I see my friend Nicole Loreto from the Royal Ottawa is here today, and I know George Weber, who is their CEO. I welcome them to Queen’s Park for mental health awareness week.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome students, teachers and parent volunteers from Montcrest School in my riding to the Legislature today—and also former Speaker David Warner.

Mr. Mike Colle: I would like to welcome a constituent of mine who is shadowing me today here at Queen’s Park. He’s a student from the great school of Forest Hill Collegiate in Eglinton–Lawrence, Brandon Brock. I welcome Brandon here.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: A fine example of women in the field of engineering is here with us today: Darla Campbell is here, from the Professional Engineers of Oakville.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the Older Women’s Network here to Queen’s Park today with their Living in Place campaign. I’m looking forward to spending some time with them.

Also, from the Ontario Community Newspaper Association, I have Gord Cameron here, who runs the local newspaper in my riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome two guests to the House, Bruce and Sheila Davis from the great municipality of Brighton in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to introduce a very good friend of mine who is here, who is also a constituent and works with the Royal Ottawa hospital. Please welcome Nicole Loreto.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I just noticed that Abbas Homayed, the publisher from sudbury.com and NorthernLife, and a great, great community member of Sudbury, is here in the gallery today. Please help me welcome him here.

Mr. Todd Smith: I see Bruce Davis has already been introduced. Bruce was the past executive director at Trenval, growing jobs in the Quinte region for 30 years. We welcome Bruce here.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am waving to Carol Coiffe, who is in the gallery. I’m afraid I don’t know the group that she is here with, but whatever that group is, they’re advocating for something really important. Carol Coiffe is one of the world’s fine human beings and a member of our church. We love you. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’d like to welcome constituent Colleen Green, who is at Queen’s Park today with the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, as well as Raymond Chokelal and Brian Ruck, who are here today from Professional Engineers Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also wanted to introduce some friends who will shortly be making it into the House. Please welcome James Witherspoon, Allison Magee and Madison Jager, but most importantly, Sarah Magee, who is my director of operations and is getting married this Sunday. I want to congratulate her and welcome her to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to welcome Suzanne Kavanagh here. She is with the Older Women’s Network advocating for Living in Place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is the tradition of the Speaker, a former member is in the House in the public gallery: From Scarborough–Ellesmere in the 30th, 31st, 33rd, 35th Parliaments, and Speaker in the 35th, David Warner is here. Thank you, David.

Special report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: special report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The OEB smacked down Hydro One’s outrageous executive salaries. In that ruling, they said Ontario shouldn’t be on the hook for what they called “unreasonably high” compensation.

Interjections.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I hear some members of the government laughing at this. It’s not a laughing matter.

This confirms what we’ve been saying all along: Hydro One salaries are out of touch. A $4.4-million salary for the CEO of Hydro One is absolutely unreasonable. The CEO makes 10 times what the CEOs make in other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier rein in these salaries? Will she bring them in line with other provinces? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to comment on the specifics of this, but just to be clear, what was being said on this side of the House as the Leader of the Opposition was asking his question is that we’re actually—no one was laughing. In fact, it was just a statement that the system is working. This is exactly the OEB’s role.

As I said, the minister will speak to the details, but what we know is that people across this province have seen on average a 25% reduction in their electricity bills; in some of the rural communities, up to a 40% to 50% reduction.

We knew that there was a challenge for many people in the province because of all of the investments that we had had to make to rebuild the electricity system. We’ve reduced those costs, and as I said, the OEB has a job to do and they are doing it. The system is working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Liberals were willing to back up a Brinks truck to the Hydro One executive office suite. They created a millionaire’s club—a millionaire club of Hydro One executives—and, frankly, the increases are only stopping because the opposition brought it to light.

Mr. Speaker, we still know only about a handful of these million-dollar salaries because the government has kept these salaries secret. They’ve removed them from the sunshine list.

It’s time to change this back, so a very specific question for the Premier: Will the Premier commit to releasing the salaries of all the high-priced executives at Hydro One? Once again, yes or no? Please don’t pass the buck.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When it comes to Hydro One salaries, Mr. Speaker, it is now a publicly traded company, as the opposition well knows, and decisions over compensation are not made directly by the government.

But what’s interesting is, just last week, that party was actually complaining about the decision of the OEB. This week, they’re liking the decision of the OEB. That is why this is a quasi—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Put an end to the interruptions, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: That is why the OEB is a quasi-judicial organization and our economic regulator, because they have the best interests of consumers as their mandate. That’s why this shows that the system is working. They recognize that they are going to continue to find ways to protect consumers with this, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to adding more in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I can’t get a commitment to return million-dollar hydro executives back to the sunshine list. They dodge and deflect that question.

But the Minister of Energy wants to talk about what happened last week, and I welcome that, Mr. Speaker, because guess what happened last week? Rates are still going up. Another rate hike; it’s unbelievable.

It turns out these investments the minister always claims were made into the system were actually just contracts handed out to Liberal-friendly firms. The system is still in desperate need of repair. Why is this government spending $5.5 million on vanity ads telling people rates are going down, when we just found out last week that rates are going up again? Can we please have an answer to that?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: So let’s talk about what’s coming down: 25% on everyone’s bill is coming down, thanks to this government and with no support from the opposition.

Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: We’ve made sure we’re holding the rates to inflation. There will be nothing more than inflation. When we’re talking about Hydro One’s draft rate order, it’s estimated that the bill impact for 2017 would be an increase—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order. He knows why.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —would be a bill increase of 0.1% and 0.2% for 2018.

That said, let me remind the opposition that the fair hydro plan has lowered bills by 25% on average per household and for over 500,000 small businesses and farms right across the province. We’ll continue to do what’s right for the people—

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

Government advertising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board said that she doesn’t agree that the advertising the government has introduced is partisan. The Auditor General has explicitly stated otherwise. Why does the government continue to challenge the independent Auditor General?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the President of the Treasury Board will want to comment in the supplementary. But I would just remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are the only jurisdiction in the country that has legislation that puts any constraints around advertising. The constraints that are in place demand that the legislation not be partisan.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s a lot lighter than it used to be before you got your hands on it.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just remind the member from Nipissing, who I think it was shouting out there, that what used to be in place was advertising that had the face of the Premier, the former Conservative Premier, on government advertising. That is partisan advertising. Nothing like that happens. There are strict rules in place. We’re the only jurisdiction that has rules around partisan advertising. Other jurisdictions look to us for what we have done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The only jurisdictions looking at Ontario are for ways to abuse government advertising, because they have become the experts on it. The government’s bulk media increase this year—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The numbers don’t lie. The government’s bulk media buy increased from $25 million last year to $57 million this year. That’s quite an increase, more than double, and that’s unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, directly to the Premier: Did the government only massively increase government advertising to suit their own re-election? Will the Premier finally acknowledge that it’s not right to use taxpayer dollars to campaign? Enough waste of taxpayer dollars.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have been very clear that the advertising that is put into the public realm is about giving people information. It’s about giving people information about programs, about changes that are being made.

It’s interesting: The Leader of the Opposition sat in Mr. Harper’s caucus, I think for nine years. I seem to remember Canada’s Economic Action Plan ads all over the country. I don’t remember hearing a voice from the backbench saying that he didn’t think that was acceptable.

The reality is that we are putting information into the public realm, giving people a way to get more information on free tuition, on reduced electricity bills. They will get more information on free medication for their young people from zero to their 25th birthday. That’s all information people in this province need and want.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier just spoke about how she used to criticize government advertising. Sadly, she has become what she has criticized. Frankly, she has now abused it to a greater level—

Interjections.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Premier has become what she once criticized, but to a greater extent than we have ever, ever seen, taking government advertising from $25 million to $57 million in an election year. Does the Premier think the public is stupid, that we don’t see this?

They’re using government advertising to campaign. The Auditor General says it’s partisan. Everyone says it’s partisan, but the Premier says trust her; don’t trust the Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, I’m on the side of the Auditor General.

Will the Premier do the right thing and abandon these partisan ads?

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Just because you yell it doesn’t make it true.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. The Minister of Economic Development and Growth will come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to repeat what I said at estimates about a dozen times, and apparently your representatives at estimates didn’t report that to the Leader of the Opposition.

In a line called “bulk media buy,” which is a line in the Treasury Board estimates, it is true that it started out last fiscal 2016-17 at $25 million, but shortly after the beginning of the year, we consolidated into that line advertising budgets from a number of other ministries, meaning that the actual amount of that line was $50 million. This year it’s $56 million, and the reason for that increase is the increased cost of translating to make sure all Ontarians can get the information, to make sure we comply with the disability act so that people who have visual or hearing disabilities can get the information, and to make sure that we can include digital advertising. The increase—

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

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: My question est pour la première ministre. There is an overcrowding and hallway medicine crisis in Ontario hospitals. The Premier knows it, her Minister of Health knows it and the good people of Ontario, who are forced to get medical treatment in overcrowded hospitals, also certainly know it.

The Liberals think that shortchanging hospitals by $300 million in this year’s budget and thinking about opening 150 interim beds in Toronto will solve the problem. This is not so, Speaker; this is not true.

Is the Premier purposefully ignoring the magnitude of this crisis, or is she really that out of touch with what’s going on in our hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to comment, but let’s be clear: In our budget this year, there was over $500 million—half a billion dollars—in additional funding for hospitals. We recognized that there needed to be an injection of funding into hospitals, and that was part of a $7-billion increase in health care funding over the next seven years.

We recognize that hospitals have challenges, but to the point that the member opposite raised about the opening of beds in a facility that had been shut down, it’s intriguing to me that the NDP wouldn’t see that if there is a challenge—and this is about the flu season; this is about an anticipated increase in patients—they wouldn’t see that solving that problem would be a good thing to do. That’s what we are doing: We are solving a problem that is imminent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital reached a capacity of 123% in January 2017. Just so you know, Speaker, 80% capacity is the maximum that experts consider safe for a hospital.

Is this enough to convince the Premier that she and her Liberal government must act now to stop this crisis from getting any worse?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I just had a look at the occupancy rate for Tillsonburg, the most recent data. Unless the member opposite somehow magically has data different than or more recent than what is published by the ministry, from April to June of this year they were below capacity.

In fact, the member knows that the vast majority of hospitals across this province are below and often substantially below capacity. But it continues to boggle my mind that this party would somehow oppose the proposal coming from half a dozen hospitals in the northern part of the GTA to open up 150 beds to relieve pressure on those hospitals, to take non-acute patients into a more appropriate transitional rehabilitative environment, which is better for them and addresses the capacity—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, only the NDP would ask us to increase hospital capacity and then oppose those very proposals that are aimed to increase capacity.

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

M me France Gélinas: Between January and May of 2017, Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital’s occupancy rate for its acute-care beds stayed above 112% at all times. I will send the FOI document over to the minister. This is five long months straight where the good people of Tillsonburg were forced to receive medical care from a hospital that is operating above safe capacity limits.

Front-line staff and hospital administrators are doing everything they can, but they need help, Speaker. Will the Premier do the right thing, admit that there is a crisis and finally make sure that our hospitals have the resources that they need to offer the best care possible to Ontario’s families?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would propose that half a billion dollars to our hospitals this year and half a billion dollars in additional funds to our hospitals last year is addressing the challenge that the member opposite is talking about.

They voted against our budget that included $24 million specifically to address capacity and wait times across the hospital system. But it’s not surprising, Mr. Speaker, when they had a minister of cuts proposed in the last election to cut $600 million from health and education—for a government, when they were in government—for a short time only, fortunately—that closed almost 10,000 hospital beds, including 13% of all the mental health beds in this province and 24% of the acute-care beds. They delisted home care. They decreased the hospital budget in their last year of government.

They reduced the number of drugs paid for by the public formulary. That’s their record. I’m not taking any lessons or advice from them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Start the clock. New question.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. This morning we learned that three long-term-care homes in Ontario have been ordered to stop accepting new residents. The conditions in these homes are horrific. Complaints range from inappropriate food and severe understaffing to violence in one home that went unreported to police for days. Seniors in London, Mississauga and Fergus deserve better than this. The Minister of Health himself said that there was “risk of harm to the residents’ health or well-being” in these homes. That’s what’s happening in these homes right now.

It’s all well and good to stop new admissions, but can the Premier tell these families what her plan is for vulnerable seniors who are already in care at these homes and who are being forced to live with these atrocious conditions?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I said this yesterday: I take my responsibilities very, very seriously when it comes to individuals in this province whose home is in a long-term-care home, Mr. Speaker. That’s why it is completely unacceptable that these operators are not meeting the province’s standards, that they’re not following the act that applies to them. That’s why I issued the three cessations of admission to these homes, because they are not complying.

But it’s important to recognize the vast majority of long-term-care homes in this province are complying fully with the act, many of them going beyond the act and providing that important, safe, high-quality care to the residents of their homes.

It’s also important to recognize that our inspection system—which is an annual system in which every single long-term-care home in the province is inspected on an annual basis—is actually seeing results. In fact, this is proof that we are able to identify the poor operators and act accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The wait-list for long-term care in Ontario tops 30,000 people, yet the Premier seems content with the status quo. She seems content to just stop admissions to the worst homes and ignore the fact that the wait-list is growing and conditions across the province are worsening.

We are going in the wrong direction on seniors’ care in Ontario. Instead of improving care and opening new homes to meet the huge demand, we are allowing heartbreaking conditions to become the new normal and doing nothing about the wait-list. How can the Premier hear the stories coming out of these homes this morning and not expand the Wettlaufer inquiry to include a broad look to address the systemic problems in long-term-care homes?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I categorically reject the perspective of the member opposite. Once again, as with the previous question, I’m confounded by the NDP. Do they or do they not want us to crack down on those long-term-care homes that are repeatedly violating the act and the orders which are applied by my inspectors in my ministry? This is precisely, again, what I would expect they would support, that if we find operators that are not complying with the act—and these are particularly egregious examples, when you look at some of the orders that were issued against these homes—we feel that it’s entirely appropriate.

It builds a stronger system and it sends a message not only to all the long-term-care homes across the province that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, but it reinforces to Ontarians what is the case in the vast majority of long-term-care homes: that they are safe and they are secure and it is their home.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I can’t believe this minister categorically denies that there are systemic problems in long-term care. Our parents and our grandparents deserve better than what the Liberal government seems to accept as good-quality care. They deserve to have a shower, to have help brushing their teeth, to eat good-quality food that helps them stay healthy. They deserve to live with dignity and respect.

These issues in the long-term-care system are systemic. It’s more than just three homes with terrible care. This is not a question of rooting out a few bad apples. We need a find-and-fix approach to our long-term-care system.

Will the Premier finally admit that violence, short staffing and poor care are not just one-time occurrences in these homes and expand the Wettlaufer inquiry to look at all the issues that we know are going on in almost every long-term-care home across Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I find it remarkably irresponsible for the member to assert that in nearly every long-term-care home in this province, these occurrences are happening. I think it’s outrageous, I think it contributes to fearmongering, and it’s consistent with the line that they’ve been taking across the board in disparaging and denigrating our health care system.

We have one of the best health care systems in the world, and I will defend that to the end. I know that there are challenges, including in our long-term-care homes—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s not fair to the families. It’s not fair to frail seniors to instill fear in them that the home that they live in is somehow providing less than the highest quality of care. And we will crack down—

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s not fair that you’re ignoring them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West will come to order.

New question.

Endangered species

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. As the minister knows, the forestry sector directly employs 57,000 people, mostly in northern Ontario. Forestry provides almost one in five jobs in the north.

We have seen what happens when mills close: Communities become ghost towns.

Speaker, the forestry sector and northern Ontario breathed a sigh of relief when the minister announced she would delay the posting of the draft species-at-risk guidelines this summer. Will the minister commit here today to real consultations with northern communities, indigenous communities and the forestry sector, and to share with those groups the government’s socio-economic analysis before moving forward with the species-at-risk guidelines?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I was delighted to meet with members of the OFIA and their members this morning. This is an important sector to the province of Ontario. Over $15.5 billion worth of economic activity provides good-paying direct and indirect jobs to 172,000 people across the country, in over 260 communities. Our government has come alongside this industry to ensure that it’s going to be thriving into the future.

At the same time, I also know that northern mayors, communities and First Nations leaders take their environmental stewardship and the protection of endangered species seriously. They live it and breathe it every day.

We are continuing to work to find a solution that protects species at risk in their habitat, minimizes impacts on forest operations and wood supply, and continues to provide economic benefits to the people of Ontario. We continue to engage with all of our partners and our indigenous communities to find a path forward to ensure that we can protect species at risk—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: Back to the minister: Northern Ontario is facing huge challenges in keeping and attracting working-age people, in part because the area is losing jobs. The minister has the power to do something to help the people of northern Ontario. The species-at-risk guidelines need to take into consideration not only the animals that live in the north, but the people, their lifestyles and their ability to make a livelihood.

This government claims to be worried about precarious employment—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of municipalities.

Mr. Norm Miller: —but your own policies are creating precarious employment in the north. One mill manager told me he has hunted and fished—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, second time.

Finish, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: One mill manager told me he has hunted and fished in the area for more than 20 years and he’s never seen a caribou or any sign of them. Yet the ministry wants the forest managed for caribou that aren’t there. Since moose and caribou don’t live in the same habitat, creating caribou habitat would drive moose out of the area, moose that are part of the local way of life.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister recognize today that people live in the north as well and that they should be valued?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: We continue to engage with our industry partners and with First Nations—including the federal and provincial ministers of forestry—across the province not only to ensure that we can protect our caribou species, but also recover them. It’s at that recovery program that we are now taking a second look. We’ve put a pause on any further posting to ensure that we have the science right and that we continue to engage with all of our partners across Canada to make sure that we get this file right.

But I don’t take lessons from the opposition member. The Conservatives do not support forestry in Ontario. Our government has provided over $74 million this year for forest roads funding. Under the PCs, forest access roads were completely downloaded to the forest industry. The forest industry sector was abandoned—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand; you sit.

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Ontario Energy Board released a preliminary decision on Hydro One’s transmission rate increase. The OEB gave Hydro One nearly everything it asked for, and we remain on track for a huge jump in transmission rates next year.

The OEB said that these rate increases were being driven in part by executive compensation, but then it approved 96.5% of Hydro One’s compensation costs. Last year, the CEO of Hydro One—the privatized Hydro One—collected six times the salary of the previous CEO. Does the Premier think that ratepayers should feel grateful that the OEB trimmed back this sort of executive greed by a mere 3.5%?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, let me reiterate: Depending on Hydro One’s draft rate order, it’s estimated that the bill impact for 2017 would be an increase of 0.1%, and 0.2% for 2018.

That said, our fair hydro plan has lowered bills by 25% on average. This is the single largest rate reduction in the province’s history, which both opposition parties voted against, I might add.

When it comes to executive compensation, I understand that people are concerned when they hear that number, but Hydro One is now a publicly traded company and decisions over compensation are not made directly by the government. But they have become a better-run company. That executive has found $75 million in savings. They brought forward a voluntary ban on the winter disconnection program; they ended it. They are becoming a better-run company, and that’s exactly why they have that executive in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Taking out a huge loan to drive down rates is not a credible strategy.

The Premier promised that a privatized Hydro One would mean lower rates, not higher. Her hand-picked privatization guru said that “private sector discipline” would drive down costs and rates for consumers. Instead, “private sector discipline” means a CEO salary that is six times what the previous CEO earned. “Private sector discipline” means a huge increase in transmission rates for next year, plus another huge increase in distribution rates that Hydro One is also demanding.

Will the Premier finally admit that her “private sector discipline” simply means more private profits for her private sector friends?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s be clear: Hydro One R1 and R2 customers are seeing a 40% to 50% reduction in their bills. I know he doesn’t like to talk about that or even look at that because he voted against—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: On top of the 40% to 50% reduction that Hydro One R1 and R2 customers are seeing now thanks to this government, let’s talk about how they’ve become a better-run company with many other things that they’ve put in place.

They’ve actually introduced more active customer communication, calling customers directly with issues. They’re giving customers choice with billing cycles, helping them to better manage their bills. They’ve introduced e-billing and are working towards mobile billing. They’re ending the practice of security deposits for new customers and, of course, as I said before, introducing a voluntary ban on winter disconnections.

Health care funding

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Providing all Ontarians with timely access to the care they need, whether at home, in their community or in one of our outstanding hospitals, is of the utmost importance to our government, but also to me as the member for Davenport.

Over the past 14 years, Ontario’s health care system has improved tremendously. We’ve increased our investments in health each and every year, allowing us to treat more patients, provide better care and reduce wait times to some of the shortest in the country.

More than a million more Ontarians and 94% of all Ontarians now have access to a primary care provider. We’ve gone from worst to first for reducing wait times, including hip and knee replacements, cataracts, cardiac care, radiation oncology, MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds, as noted by the Wait Time Alliance.

I know that our government has increased funding for health care by $23 billion since 2003. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please inform this House of the achievements our government has proudly made?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. Because we are in the middle of Mental Illness Awareness Week, I want to not only acknowledge that and how critically important our supports for those who are suffering from mental illness are—and the fact that there can be no health without mental health. It’s that important. I want to acknowledge and celebrate and thank the mental health leaders. Many of our mental health leaders are here with us today.

We have increased funding, every single year we’ve been in office, to the health sector. We’re building on these important investments by increasing investments in hospitals, in long-term-care homes, in home care, in community care, in mental health—and that includes the investment this year and last year of $1 billion added to the operating costs of our hospitals and $20 billion over the next decade in capital investments.

We’ll continue to make the investments required to ensure that—as third parties are telling us—we have one of the best health care systems in the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you, Minister, for setting the record straight in this House. I know health care is a top priority for our government, and I’m pleased to know of the great investments that we’re making in our province’s hospitals.

But I also know that our government is doing more than just investing in hospitals. Our government has made a commitment to providing Ontarians with the support that they need to create a truly accessible, integrated health care system for all Ontarians.

Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please inform this House of the investments the government is making to expand accessible care for all Ontarians going forward?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, during their tenure, the PCs closed 10,000 hospital beds. During their tenure in the 1990s, the NDP closed 9,645 hospital beds. In the last several years, we have added to the complement of acute-care beds by nearly 1,000—in just the last several years.

Since 2003, the number of physicians has grown by more than 6,000. In fact, it’s growing at three or even four times the rate of population growth currently. We have 28,000 more nurses, including 11,000 more RNs. That includes 2,642 additional nursing positions created over the last year alone. I think we can all agree that even that one statistic is a remarkable achievement, given that the previous PC government fired 6,000 nurses.

Tree planting

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The minister has announced that, as of this time next year, she’s closing the Ontario Tree Seed Plant in Angus. I want to quote from an October 2013 release from her ministry that says, “The Ontario Tree Seed Plant is celebrating 90 years of preserving biodiversity, protecting the environment and supporting the forest products and wood manufacturing sectors.” It goes on to say, “By supporting tree planting, the facility helps Ontario adapt to the effects of climate change, restores endangered tree species and supports tens of thousands of jobs in the forest industry.”

Last year, I remind you, you spent $1.6 million to upgrade this facility and its boilers. So what has changed? Has this government decided it’s no longer important to protect our environment, support the forest products sector or adapt to climate change? What is it?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I have met recently with Rob Keen from Forests Ontario, as well as Steve Hounsell, who is chair of that board, and I’ve listened to their concerns.

As Ontario’s forestry practices have changed, the demand for services provided by the tree seed plant have decreased significantly, and it no longer makes sense to operate such a large facility. As a result, we’ll be moving towards a more efficient and modern seed archive. During this transition, we’ll be encouraging new market opportunities for Ontario’s nurseries to provide native seeds to grow trees for the industry and the public.

Because we’re modernizing these services, there will be significant savings to the Ontario taxpayers through reduced operating and capital costs. By developing new policies like the new seed zone policy and creating a modern seed archive, we’ll be better positioned to respond to changes associated with climate change, including successfully delivering on the 50 Million Tree Program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: Speaker, we’re talking about the loss of a valuable and unique resource in Canada. If the announced closure goes ahead, we’ll be losing the ability to protect and restore our forests with native, genetically appropriate species. My constituents are concerned not only for their jobs—by the way, it’s not a really large operation; there are six jobs involved—but also about the loss of this valuable resource that’s literally being thrown away by your government with no consultation whatsoever.

Growers in my riding point out that the seed plant is a state-of-the-art facility producing the very best quality of seed. They explained that the seed storage is also top-notch and involves much more than just buying a freezer, as some government representatives have told us. Growers also note that this will directly impair the feasibility of Forests Ontario’s 50 Million Tree Program, as well as other conservation initiatives.

My constituents have questions, lots of questions. I ask the minister, will she agree to meet with my constituents and to explain what is happening, why it’s happening, and formulate a good plan going forward?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank, again, Rob Keen and his team, who came in to speak with me from Forests Ontario, for their work in delivering the 50 Million Tree Program and this year’s Green Leaf Challenge. We’re going to continue to look at all the options, working with our partners to ensure that this is a win-win situation for Ontario residents as well as our partners.

The member opposite knows we’re working with our partners to provide a smooth transition and is just trying to score cheap political points. He knows what we’re doing is moving from an outdated model to a more efficient and modern one, one that will save taxpayers money. It was, unfortunately—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Unfortunately, it was his party in 1996 that opened our province’s provincial nursery program for privatization and put the Ontario Tree Seed Plant in this position in the first place. He might want to—

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

Highway improvement

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier. Ontario should and could have the safest roads in Ontario—or, I should say, in North America. My mistake. Yet so many families have been devastated by accidents and loss of life on a single part of the 401; so many, in fact, it’s earned the disturbing nickname of Carnage Alley. Just ask the friends of the Payne family, or the Smulders, or the Brundritts.

For years, concerned citizens have been calling for a median barrier between London and Tilbury. When can we expect enhanced highway safety measures to be put in place on this stretch of the 401?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Infrastructure will want to comment on the technical issues, but first, let me express my condolences to all of the families who have lost loved ones on this stretch of highway. I know that some of them are here today, and it is an unbearable loss. I want them to know that we are listening. I know that the Minister of Transportation is going to be meeting with them later today.

We are going to be moving forward to put in place a barrier on that highway. As I say, the Minister of Infrastructure will speak to the specifics. I understand that the ministry is working right now on getting started on building a barrier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: These fatal accidents didn’t happen in secret. They’re well documented, and without new safety measures, they are likely to increase. The 401 is being widened in the Toronto area. More trucks will be heading to the two new border crossings in Windsor. We need to feel safe when we drive on the 401. Why won’t the government listen and commit and give us a timeline for median barriers along this stretch known as Carnage Alley?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. Road safety is our government’s top priority and I know that my colleague the Minister of Transportation takes any concern about it very, very seriously.

I’m aware that a number of advocates from this part of the province will be here at Queen’s Park today to share their concerns regarding the need for median barriers on Highway 401 between Tilbury and London. My understanding is that Minister Del Duca will be meeting with a number of those advocates later today, including the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, who was also concerned with this particular issue.

I know that that will be a very important discussion and that the minister will have more to say at that time.

For now, I would be pleased to advise that more information on that will be provided this afternoon by the minister. He has given very serious attention to this issue and is looking forward to meeting with the constituents and the member this afternoon.

Environmental protection

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique, the Honourable Chris Ballard.

In the last 14 years, Ontario’s air quality has improved dramatically, and the medical and health community know this well. That’s why we took the initiative to be the first in North America to permanently ban coal-fired electricity generation in the province. In doing so, we have significantly reduced the number of smog days in Ontario.

I know this particularly because emergency room visits because of asthma, COPD, emphysema and other respiratory ailments have decreased dramatically. The 2016 Toronto’s Vital Signs report shows that premature deaths and hospitalizations as a result of air pollution have dropped by 23% and 41% respectively since 2004.

Ontarians are able to breathe easier and live longer—and this is actually documented. My question is, can the minister please explain how Ontario’s air quality has improved under our mandate?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Merci beaucoup pour la question. Thank you to the member for that question. It’s a very important one, which he would know, being a medical doctor himself. It’s an opportunity for us to talk about how we’ve made life better and more fair for Ontarians in the past 14 years.

As the member mentioned, we have significantly reduced the number of smog days in Ontario. In 2005, for example, Ontario experienced 53 smog days. That’s 53 smog days in one year. Twelve years later, we have seen zero smog days so far in 2017—from 53 to zero.

By shutting down coal-fired plants, we have reduced sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario by nearly 25%, which has significantly increased Ontario’s air quality. Thanks to our government’s environmental leadership over the past 14 years, Ontarians are literally breathing easier than they were 14 years ago.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you to the minister, not only for his stewardship; in our own personal corridor consultations, I know he has a true passion for this file.

Extreme climate events unfortunately are increasing, it seems, week to week these days. Scientists are attributing this to human settlement, coal, fossil fuel burning and a number of other activities.

A recent study shows that more than half of Americans believe climate change contributed to the severity of recent hurricanes in Florida and Texas, as well as the Caribbean. We know this is a global issue, and Ontarians are facing similar concerns about climate change.

In the best traditions of that saying, “Act locally, but think globally,” our government has actually taken steps to mitigate climate change. Can the minister please explain how this government has taken action to mitigate the increasingly apparent threats of extreme climate events?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member for that very important question. In the past decade, climate change has become an increasingly important issue globally and right here for Ontarians. Our government has responded by taking significant steps to mitigate climate change and to make Ontario a green leader in the face of this global problem. We know that steps such as introducing a cap-and-trade system, which caps pollution levels and reinvests every dollar into programs that will help Ontarians fight climate change, are the best path forward.

What we don’t know is if the opposition even believes in climate change. In fact, the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex tweeted on January 16 of this year, “@JustinTrudeau should not force provinces to implement a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Period.” This raises the question: Do the members opposite believe that climate change is not a threat to our province?

Highway improvement

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question to the Premier: They call it “Carnage Alley” for a reason. The stretch of the 401 between London and Tilbury is one of the most dangerous roads in Ontario.

About a month ago, on August 29, a pickup truck crossed the centre median of the 401 near Dutton and smashed into a van on the other side. Two people in that van were a mother and her five-year-old daughter. They died of their injuries, and the driver of the pickup has been charged. It has now come to light that the driver of the pickup was intoxicated with both alcohol and cannabis in his body.

Nothing can bring Sarah and Freya Payne back. They died from their injuries. But a median barrier would do a lot to prevent needless deaths and accidents like theirs. Some of the Paynes’s friends and family are here today in the east gallery. A median barrier would have solved that.

Premier, when will the government act and build the barrier before another tragedy happens?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, my deepest condolences to the families. There are no words that can really express the sorrow at the loss of a family member. We do work very hard in this province; we consistently have the safest or the second-safest roads in North America, and that has been for many, many years.

But there’s always more that can be done, and this particular piece of highway is a place where there needs to be more done. That’s quite clear. You know what? I want to thank the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex for being such a strong advocate on this issue, because he has been. He’s brought it forward and he has been very clear about what needs to be done. Thank you.

I want the member to know that the ministry is actively working to install high-tension cable barriers in the grass median on this

section of Highway 401. That is in the works. I know—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll finish in the supplementary. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will.

Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the Premier: Marc Lafontaine was killed in another isolated accident, along with his niece, Alyssa, in Carnage Alley. A tractor-trailer crossed the median and hit their car head on. Mr. Lafontaine’s sister, Denise, is here today.

I commend the Minister of Transportation for agreeing to meet the concerned friends and family of the victims. I have petitions numbering over 4,000 signatures from across Ontario demanding construction of a concrete median barrier in Carnage Alley. I will be reading that petition into the record this afternoon.

My colleague Jeff Yurek from Elgin–Middlesex–London and I have been advocating for public safety for some time now. Premier, what will this government do to make sure that real action is taken to build the barrier and make Carnage Alley safer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let’s agree that a barrier has to be built. The ministry is working on that engineering right now, so there will be a barrier built.

I think it’s important that—

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes.

I think it’s important that the families have an opportunity to meet with the minister. I can tell you this from having been the Minister of Transportation for a couple of years: There are always discussions around materials, exactly what the specs should be, exactly what it should look like, timing. My hope would be—and I say to the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex that he and the families will be able—

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Chatham–Kent–Essex—that he will be able to be with the families, meet with the Minister of Transportation and ask all the questions around what is happening in the Ministry of Transportation. But we agree a barrier has to be built, and it will be built.

Social assistance

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. This morning, the Liberal government announced that only 400 people have so far signed up for its Basic Income Pilot Project in Thunder Bay, Brantford and Hamilton. New Democrats have raised concerns that the amounts received are not adequate for the participants and could keep them struggling in poverty if the basic income is subject to garnishments and debt collections.

Well, surprise, surprise: Now we’ve learned that anyone who signs up for the basic income project may be subject to garnishments and debt collections on that income. This is according to the coordinator of the Basic Income Pilot Project.

This is unacceptable. Regular recipients of ODSP and OW are not subject to these additional garnishments and collections, but it seems those on basic income will be. It has even gotten so bad that poverty advocates in my hometown of Hamilton are warning people not to join the project.

Many Ontarians struggle under household debt, but for people in poverty debt this can be a crushing, endless loop. Will the Premier confirm that basic income is subject to creditor liens on that income? Will she commit to making the necessary changes to ensure that this isn’t the case?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. My understanding—I have asked about this, and the responses I’ve received from staff are that there are not many hundreds more but, in fact, thousands more people who are in the pipeline to be processed and to be part of the pilot.

Are there questions about the rules around the pilot? Are there adjustments that will likely have to be made? Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is a pilot project. This has not been done for decades. It has been talked about for 30 or 35 years, but until now, until our Liberal government, no government has taken it upon themselves to actually put a pilot in place to find out whether this is something that can help people. We’re doing that, and we are working very hard with the researchers to get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, poverty is affecting people right now, Premier; however, it will be years before Ontario makes a final decision on whether to turn the pilot project into a broad policy.

This is the reality, Mr. Speaker: Poverty is affecting Ontarians now. And we have a solution. Bill 6, the Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act, could actively help reduce poverty immediately. By creating a Social Assistance Research Commission, annual recommendations can be made to determine what the social assistance rates need to be in each region of this province. Moving Bill 6 forward will give the province the ability to experiment with this minimum-income project.

So my question is, Speaker, why has this government stalled Bill 6 in committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, the Basic Income Pilot is one part of a response to poverty reduction in Ontario. It’s an important pilot project, and we’re working very hard to get it right. The Minister of Community and Social Services is also engaged in reform of the social assistance program.

But, on top of that, we recognize that people need support. So free tuition for over 200,000 students in this province, an increased minimum wage to $15 an hour, free medication for children from zero until their 25th birthday: Those are all supports that are being put in place to tackle poverty across the province.

There’s always more that we can do. The Basic Income Pilot is part of that.

Indigenous relations

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est pour le ministre des Relations avec les Autochtones et de la Réconciliation.

Reconciliation is a key priority of this government. We know that reconciliation is more than just an event or more than just an apology; it’s a journey. It’s a journey that we have to take together with our indigenous partners.

My own riding is on Algonquin territory, and I’m very happy that the government has made some significant steps to finally have a modern treaty with the Algonquins.

Can the minister give us more examples of the work that has been done in the last 14 years to rebuild relationships with our indigenou