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

June 2, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Jun-02 (PDF)

L181 - Thu 2 Jun 2016 / Jeu 2 jun 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 June 2016 Jeudi 2 juin 2016

Committee sittings

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Wearing of flowers

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Election finances

School facilities

Hospital funding

Anti-Semitism

Mercury poisoning

Victims of crime / Victimes d’actes criminels

Energy policies

Energy conservation

Health care

Autism treatment

Highway improvement

Deferred Votes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Public transit

Autism treatment

Don Ross

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Mercury poisoning

Franco-fête

Celtic heritage

Aldo Boccia

Cycling

Introduction of Bills

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

Brain Tumour Awareness Month Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le Mois de la sensibilisation aux tumeurs cérébrales

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Italian Fallen Workers Memorial

Petitions

Health care funding

Lyme disease

Electronic cigarettes

Alzheimer’s disease

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Transports en commun

Highway ramps

Caregivers

Government anti-racism programs

Cormorants

Prix de l’essence

Private Members’ Public Business

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act (Double-Crested Cormorants), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du poisson et de la faune (cormorans à aigrettes)

Consideration of Bill 74

Sikh massacre

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act (Double-Crested Cormorants), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du poisson et de la faune (cormorans à aigrettes)

Consideration of Bill 74

Sikh massacre

Consideration of Bill 74

Sikh massacre

Private members’ public business

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Committee sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice with respect to a private member’s public bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated Monday, May 30, 2016, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet at 12:40 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, 2016, for the purpose of a presentation from the family of Rowan Stringer for up to 10 minutes, followed by nine minutes of questions divided equally between the three caucuses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that notwithstanding the order of the House dated—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispensed. Do we agree? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 12, 2016, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant plusieurs lois et abrogeant plusieurs règlements en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’énergie et la planification énergétique à long terme.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I rise in the Legislature today to speak to Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act. What’s clear is that across the province, families are struggling to make ends meet, yet Ontario ratepayers continue to see unaffordable increases to their hydro bills. There’s nowhere in North America where energy rates have risen like they have in Ontario over the past few years. While the Liberals would rather blame this rate increase on the weather, it’s clear this is a direct result of years of scandal, waste and mismanagement in the energy sector.

Companies see rates as a barrier to doing business in the province, and average Ontario families continue to struggle to pay their hydro bills.

With respect to electricity, the main issue with this bill is that it removes the autonomy of the Independent Electricity System Operator. The bill centralizes all transmission and electricity sector planning with the minister’s political staff and cabinet, thereby overriding the industry experts at the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board.

When it comes to choosing what is best for the province and the electricity system within it, that decision will be made with a partisan and political lens. Building power lines to the north could easily be vetoed by a desire to bring in hydroelectric-generated power from Quebec. Clearly, energy is a necessity of life, and the Liberal government should not be able to dangle needed electricity projects that would improve affordability and reliability in front of certain ridings come election time to secure victory. We should do what’s best for the province, not what’s best for the Liberal government.

By making the Independent Electricity System Operator bend to the will of the cabinet, the political goals may differ from what is needed on more than just transmission. Essentially, the minister or the government can create whatever policy they like, on whichever grounds they like. That is hardly a stable system that acts in the best interests of all Ontarians.

The Independent Electricity System Operator does not have the ability to object to any of the directives or targets that are given by the ministry, even if functionally impossible. They are forced to create an implementation plan that the minister can alter or outright reject until he or she is satisfied. Again, Speaker, the Independent Electricity System Operator cannot reasonably object to any project.

Further, there is no requirement for the minister to hold consultations with Ontarians or people within the energy sector. The bill only suggests that the minister must consult with “groups that the minister considers appropriate given the matters being addressed by the long-term energy plan.” Even if the government does consult these groups, they’re under no obligation to act on their advice. They are only legislatively required to “consider the results of such consultation.” Since cabinet and the minister write and approve the long-term energy plan, none of the documentation rationalizing any of the plans will be made public.

In addition, because the Ontario Energy Board and the Independent Electricity System Operator are no longer allowed to hold hearings or raise opposition to any plans put forward by the government, the technical analysis regarding cost to impact on energy supply will not be brought forward. This means that if the government wants to move ahead with an expensive transmission project, they can put the entire cost onto the rate base without any objection from any entity.

The government can also do this even if the project is not needed in the first place. For example, the Caledonia power line, which does not connect to the grid, was built even with objections and analysis from the Ontario Energy Board. Speaker, imagine what kinds of decisions will be made if no objections or analysis are ever required.

However, the changes to the Ontario Energy Board Act and the Electricity Act are not the only problems with the bill. This bill will also allow the government to quietly enact home energy audits through changes to the Green Energy Act and the proclamation of past sections of that act. The bill also leaves the door open to applying these mandatory audits to businesses, as well.

This government has shown, time and time again, that it can’t get anything right, and that it’s not concerned with what is best for Ontarians. It is only concerned with its own political survival.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I’ll be opposing this bill. This bill does nothing to combat skyrocketing energy prices. In fact, this government doesn’t appear to have any plan to do that. Instead, this bill seeks to give broad, new powers to the minister.

On energy, this government continues to show that it just doesn’t get it. When they’re not talking about banning natural gas, they’re talking about selling Hydro One. This Liberal government’s energy policies are not only hurting ratepayers; they are seriously damaging our economy and businesses.

My colleagues and I continue to question the government on hydro-related issues, and we’ll continue to do that. In fact, we called for specific action to be reflected in this year’s budget, which included a viable plan to deal with rising energy costs. Instead, the Liberal government put forward a budget full of tax increases and limited funding that will do nothing to ease the pressures of life on my constituents in Whitby–Oshawa.

Governing is about priorities. It is clear that this government is more concerned about banning natural gas than putting in place policies that make hydro affordable for Ontarians. I want to take the opportunity to assure Ontarians that we will continue to stand up for ratepayers in this province while the clock runs out on a government whose moment has come and gone.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I, too, will be opposing this bill, which basically takes any third-party, independent responsibility for planning electricity structure completely away. Whether we talk about the IESO or we talk about the OEB, they will become implementation instruments of the government. They will not be in charge of planning our electricity structure like we wanted it to be, like we have been doing since 2004 or should have been doing since 2004.

I have a letter here that is signed by Mayor Brian Bigger, who is the mayor of the city of Greater Sudbury. He goes on to criticize this government. He has written to the Honourable Bob Chiarelli. He talks about his meeting. Basically, in Sudbury, in the city of Greater Sudbury, there is Greater Sudbury Utilities, and then 30,000 people who live in the city of Greater Sudbury are serviced by Hydro One. What the city of Greater Sudbury wanted to do was quite simple: It was to purchase the assets of Hydro One so that everybody in Sudbury would pay the same hydro rate under Greater Sudbury Utilities.

You figure that could be possible, Madam Speaker? Absolutely not. The government was so bound and determined that they were going to sell off Hydro One to the highest bidder so that they could bring money in that they failed to take, basically, an equitable view of the taxpayers of Sudbury and the ratepayers of Sudbury. So Greater Sudbury Utilities was never able to have a truthful conversation so that everybody in Sudbury would be covered by Greater Sudbury Utilities. Instead, half of us use Hydro One and pay through the roof.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened to the interesting points made by the member from Whitby–Oshawa. Sometimes it’s hard to face reality. The reality is that in this province, we have a very comprehensive energy supply system that is not cheap; it is not free. It takes hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to keep our energy supply available. Look at what is going to be required to refurbish Darlington, the Bruce Power cost. These are billions of dollars that are needed to invest in our energy sources, whether it be nuclear, whether it be natural gas, whether it be hydroelectric.

The other parties think that somehow this is done for free, that somehow we get this magical power when we turn on the light switch in our homes. It is an incredible investment that we’ve made in this province, and it is really illusionary to think that somehow you can freeze hydro rates, as the former Conservative Party did. I remember in 2003, we had a massive blackout. I remember standing at the corner of Avenue Road and Eglinton directing traffic because the Conservative government didn’t invest in energy supply. So whether it’s the natural gas we’re investing in, whether it’s nuclear we’re investing in, you can’t have a free lunch.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member, under standing order 23, is definitely impugning the motives of other members, and he is falsifying history. And he’s—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order. That’s not a point of order.

Further questions and comments? I’m going to the member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker—

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I had 15 seconds left. The member from Pembroke stood up and took my time because he disagreed with what I said. That should not be in order.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): That’s not a point of order.

I’m going to turn to the member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to make a couple of comments on the response by the member for Whitby–Oshawa. I think that one of the key issues he identified that we feel very strongly about is the question of where the decisions are being made, the concentration of decision-making by the political side of the equation when in fact it should be that the planning is based on engineering and on science, on best practices and the kinds of things that stand up to public scrutiny and transparency. That is the key to good decision-making, not ones where you are legislated an avenue into a minister’s office, as opposed to the engineering work that’s done before decisions are made. That is the problem.

Of course, if we look at the cost of hydro, it is out of control. It is not competitive. It acts as a deterrent for investment and for job creation. Those are the kinds of things that we on this side feel are the most important. This bill falls short of providing that kind of transparency that taxpayers need.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to have a few moments. I will be getting up on my portion of the debate shortly after the member finishes up his own portion.

It’s been lively in here already this morning. That’s because this is a hot topic in the province of Ontario. The people of my riding and, quite frankly, people wherever I travel within this province—this is one of the first issues out of their mouths: the price of hydro in the province of Ontario and the concerns that brings upon a family.

The members talked about blackouts that happened in 2002. Well, we have blackouts that are happening today. They may not be off-the-grid blackouts, but they’re blackouts because people can’t afford to pay their bills. That’s a concern. When we talk about dollars and the costs that go into producing a hydro system in the province of Ontario, how about the wasted dollars that they put into that energy file in this province?

I’ll be happy to go further into those things in my portion of the debate. It’s definitely something that needs to be highlighted in this House. People on the other side of the bench—the government—need to get it. I think these new members—I’m not sure what they talk to their constituents about, but when my constituents come and talk to me, it’s about how they can’t afford any higher hydro costs, that there isn’t any more money in their budget, that they struggle to turn the lights on and they struggle to heat their homes. And it’s not necessarily electric heat.

It’s just keeping the lights on, keeping the house warm. Making sure there’s enough food on the table these days is a struggling attempt for many people in this province.

So for the member opposite to be talking about “it costs a lot of money for the energy file,” I think he’d better look at his own back door and see really where the money has been spent on the energy file.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Whitby–Oshawa to wrap up.

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s a pleasure to sum up. I thank the members on both sides of the Legislature for their comments, which are always constructive. A lot of passion is presented in each of those commentaries.

Again, we still have across this province, as you know, Speaker, families who are struggling to make ends meet. I have those discussions on a regular basis with constituents whom I represent in Whitby–Oshawa.

In those discussions, it’s not only families who tell me that it’s a struggle to make ends meet; it’s local businesses as well. I recently met with some members of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce and the Oshawa chamber of commerce, and they told me that it’s really a struggle, given the unaffordable increases that they’re trying to deal with overall.

They also spoke specifically to the energy rates and how high they’ve risen over the years here in Ontario. They just see it as an impediment to succeeding with their businesses and creating jobs here locally. Those companies see the rates as a barrier to even expanding their businesses as well. In

summary, I think that there are a lot of challenges within this bill.

Another aspect that constituents tell me they’d like to see more of as we move ahead is consultation. We know that the best outcomes of bills and legislative frameworks is consultation—broad consultation—so that people have a very good understanding and they can provide their direct input about what’s best for the province and what’s best for their respective communities.

Speaker, I appreciate very much your time and patience in terms of the discussion of this bill this morning.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, on behalf of the people of Hamilton Mountain, people who, by the way, have a lot to say to me about this government and the way it handles our energy file. They have a lot to say, Speaker, and I have a lot to say, and I have to warn the government now that none of it is going to be positive, as this bill does nothing to make people feel better.

The most common complaint I hear is about the ever-increasing cost of hydro in the province of Ontario. I hear it from families who are furious that their hydro bills are going through the roof. Prices went up by 80% between 2004 and 2014, and they’re still going up. One constituent called to tell me what he had done, which he thought was a very wise approach: conservation. Quite frankly, I agreed with him, thinking that conservation was the right way to go. Then he continued to tell me the rest of his story.

He managed to conserve so well that his usage went down to zero kilowatt hours, but he still received a bill for delivery charges. It just infuriated him that he had to pay those charges.

I hear from businesses that tell me about skyrocketing hydro bills and how they’re making it really hard to survive. We know that businesses are failing, thanks to energy costs. When my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane spoke to this bill, he told us about businesses in his riding in the north that use a lot of energy, and they actually find it cheaper to run diesel generation than use electricity. That’s incredible. One of the biggest selling points for electric cars these days is their much lower fuel costs, but diesel generators can be cheaper than electricity coming from the grid.

What sort of energy system allows this to happen? People are angry about what they have to pay for electricity, and so they should be.

They’re also angry that this government is selling Hydro One, because they know that it will only add to what they have to pay. They know that privatization will mean higher bills than they’re already paying. They know that they didn’t ask for it, and they know that they never gave anyone permission to sell it. After all, Hydro One belongs to the people of Ontario—public not private. But this Liberal government comes along and says, “Too bad. We’re selling it. It’s gone. We’re selling your property.” And they’re allowed to get away with it.

So here we have a public utility that built Ontario over the past 110 years or so and a grid that has spread its tentacles throughout Ontario and facilitated the growth of a manufacturing economy, and was, quite frankly, the envy of the world. But what has this government done with that? Well, let’s listen to what the Auditor General had to say, because she had quite a bit to say about this in her report last year when she spoke about electricity planning in Ontario.

She noted that determining future electricity demands requires a huge amount of technical planning, and that this was reflected in the 2004 amendments to the Electricity Act, which required “the Ontario Power Authority ... to conduct independent planning and prepare an ‘Integrated Power System Plan.’” The Ontario Energy Board was “to review and approve the technical plan” so that the interest of consumers would be protected. That was how electricity planning was supposed to be conducted in Ontario, according to the 2004 amendments.

Sadly, that isn’t the case. As the Auditor General says, “Over the last decade, this power system planning process has essentially broken down, and Ontario’s energy system has not had a technical plan in place for the last 10 years. Operating outside the checks and balances of the legislated planning process, the Ministry of Energy has made a number of decisions about power generation that have resulted in significant costs to electricity consumers.”

She also pointed out that although the OPA developed the technical plans—one in 2007 and one in 2011—neither went forward. Instead, the ministry published its long-term energy plan, a shorter, more policy-oriented document. The Auditor General noted several problems with this plan, what she called their policy plan, and that it had no cost-benefit analysis or other alternatives.

There’s a lack of transparency. Consumers are not being informed of the reasons behind the rising electricity costs. She questioned the stakeholder consultation process, and with good reason: After a two-month consultation process, the ministry couldn’t provide her with a

summary of the responses that they received. The plan was released just five days after the consultation period ended. I think that any reasonable person would agree that’s not enough time to digest the consultation and incorporate the input into the plan.

That’s a pattern that we’ve seen over and over and over again with this government. Consultations are no more than window dressing. We saw it earlier this year when the budget was introduced before the legislative committee could do their pre-budget report. Before that report was tabled, the government already had their budget written, so nothing from the people of Ontario whatsoever.

The Auditor General has also pointed out that “the ministry has effectively cut the Ontario Energy Board ... out of the picture.” One of the main reasons, Speaker, as you know, for the OEB is to protect the interests of consumers and to consider the prices and adequacy, reliability and quality of our electricity service. But with no oversight of the power planning system and a very limited oversight of the generation costs, the Auditor General notes that the OEB cannot do what it’s meant to do. That’s a problem, Speaker. The two technical plans that were submitted never made it far enough to get reviewed by the OEB, something the OEB is required to do by legislation from 2004.

The policy plans that the ministry says replace the technical plans are not required by legislation, which also means the OEB is not mandated to review them. The OEB wasn’t consulted at all over the privatization of Hydro One. It’s one of the largest privatizations of a government-owned generation asset in Canada, and the Liberal government sees no benefit in engaging the Ontario Energy Board, a board whose job it is to protect consumers’ interests. That is just more evidence of the unbelievable arrogance of this government.

This arrogance and mismanagement of our hydro system is costing the people of Ontario dearly. Smart meters were supposed to move power consumption from peak times to other times of the day. That didn’t work and it cost us $2 billion. A boondoggle, they call it—$2 billion. Think how that money could have been spent. We are starving our hospitals.

We have wait-lists for residential services for people with severe developmental disabilities whose parents are unable to adequately care for them, people struggling to survive on minimal social assistance payments, autistic children over the age of five being denied treatment they were promised, yet we can blow $2 billion on failed smart meter plans. Brilliant.

We dump $1.5 billion in surplus power every year from our electricity market. The Auditor General reported last year that we actually paid $32.6 million between 2009 and 2014 for other jurisdictions to take the power we produced. And let’s not forget the gas plants scandal, Speaker—another billion dollars more down the drain, thanks to this government’s energy file. And how does the government address their abysmal record? By bringing us this bill that puts the legislative requirements in place that actually codify their bad behaviour.

As bad as the past 10 years of electricity policy have been, there has at least been a legislative framework that, if followed, would have prevented some of the worst excesses, but this bill wipes all of that away and gives the minister free rein to bring further havoc to Ontarians. Several respected professionals presented to the committee. By the looks of my time, I’ll have to try to get them in and their quotes and what they said at committee during that time, because there’s definitely a lot to say on this bill and the hurt it does to the people of this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think this is the first time that I’m able to speak while you’re in the chair. Congratulations, and I know you’ll do a fine job.

I’m delighted to make a couple of comments on the 10 minutes that I heard from the member from Hamilton Mountain. I was hoping to hear her talk about Bill 135, but I didn’t hear much about that.

This is really about putting in place a structure that will help planning for the future of our energy and, in some cases, so that we’ll be able to manage how we control costs, how we move forward to make sure that we have a reliable system, and of course, I didn’t hear much on that.

The status quo that the former government left behind—

Miss Monique Taylor: Oh, here we go.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Yes, that’s right. Here we go.

Interjection: The truth hurts.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: The truth hurts. And it wasn’t their government. It was the government opposite.

In the municipality of Alnwick/Haldimand, which is in my riding—near the Big Apple, by the way—the government of the day had to put in a diesel generator to make sure that businesses and homes would maybe have power when they needed it, Speaker. Those days are gone. But we have to make sure we don’t go back to those—pardon the pun—dark days. This is what this intends to do.

When I hear about all the other stuff, it’s hard to—I would hope that they would support this and I would hope that whoever speaks about it—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ve heard so much of this fairy tale for so long, and the charade, so I want to applaud the member from Hamilton Mountain. I don’t intend to support this bill.

I remember that blackout in 2003. Just a history lesson: It was created in, I think, Ohio from a tree branch falling, and then the power cascaded.

It’s a bunch of malarkey that you guys stand up and try to defend the billions of dollars you’ve wasted—and that’s according to the Auditor General, and you know that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I have 5,000 names on an online petition saying that you guys are on the wrong track with your energy policies. If you want to come on down to Sarnia–Lambton and try to peddle this stuff, I’ll gladly take you around to all the industries that will show you the door when you get there.

Anyway, the costs that you’ve unloaded onto the general public and the ratepayers of this province is a travesty, and you know it. I’d love to go and sit in your constituency offices someday and see when the people come there, because I can’t believe that the people in Sarnia–Lambton or in Hamilton are the only people who care about energy rates—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Come to my office in Peterborough and I’ll buy you lunch.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I wish you would.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I will.

Mr. Robert Bailey: All right. I’ll come.

I want to poll the people in your ridings because I can’t believe that the people in our part of the province are any different than anyone else.

I have 5,000 names on an online petition that are challenging that leaked document in the Globe and Mail. I would love to get that up to 10,000, and when I do, I’ll make sure I tell you. It’s online today, and this will probably help drive it up some more today. It goes up about 200 a day. I hope you heckle me some more. I’m going to try to speak all day and I’m going to mention it all the time, so I can keep increasing the numbers. I’ll make sure that they know the true story.

I’ve got more to say, but I’ll have to leave it till I get another shot at it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I know that there is a lot of this cross-talking amongst the members. But I want to encourage everybody to be respectful. There’s a lot of shouting across the floor. We need to be respectful to each other during this debate. There’s a lot of emotion and a lot of cross-talk. Please speak through the Chair.

I recognize the member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you very much, Chair. I’m going to speak through the Chair. How’s that?

I want to rise today on Bill 135, but I want to talk about electricity costs in the province of Ontario in relation to what’s going on in the province over the next few months, over the summer. Some very important things are going to happen over the summer. Big Three bargaining is going to happen with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, where we have an auto industry that relies on hydro.

I was at a function for the United Way. General Motors and their employees in St. Catharines donated almost half a million dollars to the United Way. But the plant manager, Carolyne Watts, pulls me over—I used to be a chair of United Way—and she says, “Gatesy, I’ve got to tell you, we’ve got a crisis in St. Catharines.” I said, “What’s”—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Gatesy?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’ve worked with her before.

I said, “What’s the problem?” She said, “Hydro rates are killing us. The plant will be in jeopardy if we don’t get hydro rates in the province of Ontario under control.” That wasn’t me saying that; that was the plant manager, who wants to make sure that those 2,000 jobs and those seven off-jobs that are there will be there in the parts sector, whether it be in machine shops.

I watched the news just the other day, and the president of Chrysler—in Windsor, they have a great plant there. They’re producing one of the best vehicles in the world, where they have 6,000 or 7,000 employees right in the plant. Do you know what he said? The biggest concern for him to invest in the province of Ontario is hydro rates.

So when people stand up and talk to our colleagues on the Liberal side, it’s not me saying it. I can stand up and say whatever I want and you can agree or disagree, but these are people in decision-making positions who are going to put jobs into our province and make sure our kids and our grandkids have jobs.

I’ll finish this up in my next two minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bob Delaney: I listened carefully to what the member from Hamilton Mountain was saying and listened very carefully to all of the comments that followed. In the entire cycle, nobody talked about the bill. I heard talk about auto-sector bargaining, Hydro One, stranded debt, and years-old resolved issues—things that have nothing to do with power planning.

I’m looking at the notes I’ve made as the parliamentary assistant, supplying my own two-minuters and doing my own

part in the debate. We’ve said almost everything that needs to be said on this particular bill. There is nothing new being said on it. I have nothing to respond to messages that have nothing to do with the bill.

It just strikes me that we are very near the time to move forward on this bill. We need to get on with the next version of the long-term energy plan. We need to get that process started, get out into the community and start hearing from people. We need to take a system that worked well in 2013—and should now be law, should this bill pass—and get that system out so that we can give Ontarians a good vision of their energy future moving forward from 2017. It’s time to get on with the job, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I turn to the member from Hamilton Mountain to wrap up.

Miss Monique Taylor: This has definitely been a lively debate, and I think that just really goes to the heart of the matter, which is what this does to the people of this province, what it does to their pocketbook and what it does to their hydro bill.

I was reminded of another story of a woman who lives on a disability cheque. She’s disabled, through no fault of her own. She lives in a lower-income part of town. She doesn’t turn her heat on. She heats her home by turning her oven on and opening the door of her oven. She wears a lot of sweaters and a lot of socks and a lot of blankets, and she thinks it’s okay that she lives like this. That’s not okay, Speaker. It’s not okay that people in our province live like this, in the city of Hamilton.

Take that farther up north, where the costs are that much higher, where many people are paying for electric heat. How are those people feeling? It’s so much colder.

That’s the crux of this debate. This bill went to committee, and not one amendment was passed—not one amendment. How do you put through an entire bill of this nature, that talks about our energy system in the province of Ontario, and not one amendment could be passed? Why? Because the Liberals know best. It doesn’t matter what file it is; it doesn’t matter what’s happening; the Liberals have the majority and the Liberals win. They have the first say, they have the middle say, they have the final say and that’s it.

They don’t want to hear from anybody else and, quite frankly, when they have to hear from somebody else, we have to put up with the heckling and everything else that goes on. My thought is the people of this province. I wish they felt the same.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning to you and good morning to the good people of Ottawa–Orléans and all members of the House. It’s a pleasure, actually, and a delight to stand up this morning. As my colleague mentioned and made reference to, in this bill, it’s about planning for our future. When I think about our long-term energy planning, it’s certainly an essential piece of legislation in terms of clean, reliable and affordable energy for our future.

Ontarians have been clear that they want to play a role in our government’s long-term energy process, and this government has listened, Madam Speaker, and introduced this bill, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. I know we’ve been talking about it and I know some of my colleagues have been sharing. I just want to reiterate a few points. If passed, this legislation—and it’s very important—will actually ensure that a consistent, transparent, long-term planning process is followed. It would also enshrine in law a requirement for extensive consultation.

I’m going to have to wear my glasses on this one, Madam Speaker.

It would enshrine in law a requirement for extensive consultation with the public, stakeholders and aboriginal groups in the development of energy plans, as is already standard practice. It would also amend the Green Energy Act of 2009 by introducing two new initiatives to help Ontario families, businesses and the province as a whole to conserve energy and water to manage costs, and it would support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the IESO to undertake competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement, when appropriate.

Madam Speaker, I have to say this bill has now seen over 18 hours of debate between second and third readings. I think this has been considerable debate.

Interjections.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes, I agree. We’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and certainly perspectives. There are other pieces of legislation that need to come to the floor for debate. I want to talk about Bill 178, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, and I think about Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act. I would like to spend some time to debate some of those other very important pieces of legislation that are currently before the House. We really can’t, because Bill 135 is still being dealt with. As a result, Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I move that this question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Madame Lalonde has moved that the question now be put.

I’m satisfied that 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 can hear some nos.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it. A recorded vote will be required. The vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Orders of the day? The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Madam Speaker, I know that in the great riding of Peterborough business is continuing as we speak, but here at Queen’s Park there’s no further business at this time.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): If there’s no further—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): There are no points of order.

We’re going to recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0944 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m pleased to introduce my constituency staff, Lisa LaPierre and Julie Blake;, a co-op student from Peninsula Shores District School, Alex Pickett; and a Rotary Club exchange student from Osaka, Japan, Tomoki “Tomcat” Maeda. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: It’s my pleasure to introduce the almost 50 young people sitting in the gallery from Grassy Narrows First Nation who are here with us today. As we know, they’ve travelled over 1,700 kilometres. Over 1,000 members and supporters from the community will be here demanding for their area to be cleaned up. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: From my riding of Barrie, I’d like to welcome Ellie Stones, the recipient of the victim services award of distinction, as well as her parents, Shannon and Kevin, and her grandfather Randy Lovelace.

I would also like to welcome Jennifer Jackson and Jennie-May Banks, who accepted the same award on behalf of the Child Advocacy Centre of Simcoe/ Muskoka.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Yvonne Lindfield, who is in the gallery behind us here. She was a recipient of a victim services award of distinction for victims of crime at the ceremony this morning with the Attorney General.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning. I have a number of guests from Windsor this morning. Miss Emily Gilbert is here with her mom, Shelley. Shelley was one of the recipients of the Attorney General’s awards of distinction this morning. They are joined by Theresa Ouellette-Klein from Windsor. Welcome to question period and Queen’s Park this morning.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Sheena Howard, who’s in the members’ east gallery today. She is a very accomplished nurse who works at the Peterborough Clinic in Peterborough.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I have a number of introductions to make. As was recognized, Jennifer Jackson, executive director of the Child Advocacy Centre of Simcoe/ Muskoka is here, along with Jennie-May Banks. They won awards at the victim services awards of distinction.

I also have the pleasure to introduce a long-time family friend, Simon Hirsch, who is here today in the Speaker’s gallery, as well as the most loving and smart person I know in my life: My mother, Judy Brown, is here.

Last but not least, the pillar of my family, my grandmother, who is 102 years old, is at Queen’s Park for the very first time. Thank you to the Speaker for having her in his gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Anyone who’s 102 gets to do anything and go anywhere they want.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure and honour to recognize and acknowledge Dr. Mohit Bhandari and his daughter Kaya, who are both here. Dr. Bhandari is a recipient of a victim services award of distinction for his work on issues of violence against women and intimate-partner violence.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to recognize Rubaiyat Karim, who is the manager of the York Region Centre for Community Safety and was here accepting the Attorney General’s victim services award on behalf of her organization.

Also, Leslie Bullock from the St. John Ambulance support dog project was here accepting an award on behalf of her program.

And two people from my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, Jill and Andrew Kellie, are here to have lunch as constituents.

I’d also like to welcome my constituency assistant Trish Palichuk and her son Jack, who are in the gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Given my comments over the last couple of days on introduction of guests—it looks like there are quite a few here today—let’s get through those introductions. I’ll give you the time that’s necessary to do that, so don’t fret, but let’s make sure we introduce all of our guests now.

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to acknowledge, in the members’ gallery, Elizabeth Gajewski, who is a Parkdale–High Park constituent and winner of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction for her work for women who have been abused and for all of those in the Eastern European and particularly the Polish communities.

Also, our page captain today is Ariane Parent. Her mother, Isabel Blair; her father, Patrick Parent; and her brother David are all here in the gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: On behalf of Lorenzo Berardinetti, MPP for Scarborough Southwest, page captain Sulin Fletcher’s family is here. I’m pleased to welcome them: mother, Peggy Brooks; aunt Dianne Algera; and aunt Joanne Brooks. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Ms. Lindsay Upton, a winner of this year’s victim services awards, from my riding. She’s in attendance here today. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have a number of introductions. First of all, welcome to Dan Ashbourne and Rachel Crawford here from the London Family Court Clinic, being recognized in the victim services awards of distinction.

From OUSA, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, we have Zak Rose, Armin Escher, Danielle Pierre, Justin Bedi and Lindsay D’Souza.

Last and absolutely not least, a very special guest, Tami Tran, in the east gallery. Welcome all.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to introduce another one of our Attorney General’s victim services awards winners: from Family Counselling and Support Services for Guelph-Wellington, executive director, Joanne Young Evans, and chair of the board, Sandra Ellis. Welcome.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Kerri Tadeu. She is also a recipient of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction. Thank you for being here today.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m very pleased to introduce a good friend and a great Ontarian, Mr. Robert Simpson, president of HopeLink International. With Mr. Simpson is Levi Beardy, who is a board member of HopeLink International. Welcome to both of you, gentlemen.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is my distinct pleasure to introduce Stephan Jost, who is the new CEO of the AGO, and his colleague Lisa Clements.

While I’m here, I’d also like to welcome Paul Costa to the Legislature here today.

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a couple of guests from Scarborough–Rouge River. I want to welcome them: Jan Pieter Broekhof, Anne Broekhof, Sandra Broekhof, Christopher Sampson, Lilian Sampson, Kathleen Broekhof, Maria Broekhof, Rick Gocool, Lucia Broekhof, Luke Foss, Sarah Church and Robert Sprague.

Also, I want to welcome my colleague and a friend, Dr. Gail Donner, who is here with us today.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome Michelle Barclay, Mary Lou Loughlin, Pam Preston and Doug Barclay, who are from my riding of Halton and are up in the public gallery. Michelle is described by police officers as “invaluable” and by victims as an “angel.” She was one of the victim services awards recipients this morning.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce some very important health care stakeholders we have here with us in the gallery. We have representatives from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU Healthcare, Kitchener–Waterloo SEIU, the representatives from the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres, and from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. We also have representatives from the Association of Ontario Health Centres, the Association of Local Public Health Agencies and, finally, my external adviser on home and community care, Gail Donner.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce the parents of today’s page captain Waleed Malik. From the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, we have Asghari Begum and his father, Kashif Malik.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to introduce in the House this year’s winners of the victim services award, who are here for question period—especially Ellie, who is one of the recipients, 11 years old. I think she’s going to replace me in a few years.

Hon. Mario Sergio: From the wonderful riding of York West, I’d like to welcome in the House Louise Russo and friends. I hope she will enjoy the proceedings today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Further introductions. Minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, I believe you will find we have unanimous consent—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One moment, please.

I’m honoured to welcome a Brant constituent who has received a victim services award this morning for their program Embrace Her With Love, the executive director of Ganohkwasra Family Assault Services Centre, Sandi Montour. Welcome.

We also have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the education committee of the Parliament of Sweden, led by chair Ms. Lena Hallegren. Thank you for joining us.

The minister responsible for seniors on a point of order.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been notified there are other introductions.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe we have members of the community from Grassy Narrows here. I just want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Also, I noticed a good friend of mine, Darcy MacNeill, is in the House. I’m just disappointed that he’s sitting on the other side.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now I will entertain the minister responsible for seniors’ issues.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear pins in recognition of June 2, Italy’s national day, and Italian Heritage Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for seniors’ issues is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins today. Do we agree? Agreed.

Wearing of flowers

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I seek unanimous consent to allow all members to wear a cornflower to commemorate June as ALS Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent to wear the cornflower. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Parents across Ontario still don’t know what to do since this government has turned their back on children with autism.

Parent and professor Janet McLaughlin has said that legal avenues are being considered in terms of filing human rights complaints. She said that they are looking to challenge this government for discriminating against children with autism just because of their age.

This would not be the first time the Liberals have fought parents with children with autism in the court. I would not be surprised if the Liberals were ready to go to court again. After all, their member from Mississauga–Streetsville did call the police on a parent with a child with autism.

Mr. Speaker, will the Liberals be fighting parents in the courtroom instead of giving children the help that they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On this side of the House, we are focused on making sure that every child with autism gets the services that they need. Otherwise, we would not be investing $333 million. It is our focus to make sure that kids who are sitting on a waiting list—it really is surprising to me that both opposition parties think it’s better to have children sitting on a waiting list getting no service than actually getting service.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m asking everyone to come to order. I will repeat from yesterday if I have to. I will do that quickly. It’s your choice.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We recognize that every family needs to have an assessment and needs to be in contact with a provider, and that the transition needs to be clear to parents. All of us have been meeting with parents. The minister has been working to make sure that each family gets the information they need so their children can get the services they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: Over the long weekend, I sat at a Tim Hortons in Mississauga with Melanie Palaypayon; her husband, Clint; and her son, Xavier. When they were there, the husband, Clint, couldn’t stop crying—crying in the crowded Tim Hortons. They said to me that he moved to Canada a decade ago thinking that this is a country where, if you work hard, if something happens, there would be a social safety net you could depend upon. He said to me—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The government can heckle as much as they want, but you know what? He told me that all they wanted was to talk to their government representative, their Liberal MPP, to explain what this means, that IBI wouldn’t be available for their child, Xavier.

The Mississauga–Streetsville MPP apologized but only after it was exposed on the front page of the Toronto Star, only once CTV’s Paul Bliss exposed it.

The family asked me to ask today if the Premier will apologize—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the member has apologized. It is unacceptable to me that, quite frankly, any member in this House would not meet with parents who are concerned about their children. We are all doing that. A meeting has been offered to the family.

As I said, we are focused on making sure that every family in this province with children with autism has the information that they need and that their children get the services that they need.

It was unacceptable and is unacceptable to me that we would have children on a waiting list for two, three or four years, getting no service and no support. We are putting in place a program that will allow those kids to get the service that they need and to get it in the time frame that is the best for them and the most effective in terms of treatment. That’s what we’re focused on.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: What is unacceptable is that your government callously kicked 2,200 kids off the list for IBI.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader.

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question was not to hear more government talking points; my question was the family. The family wants an apology. They want an apology from the Premier. It was the Liberal Party representative who, instead of meeting with a family in tears about seeing their child’s life thrown away by this government because IBI won’t be available, despite waiting three years on the list—Melanie’s wish is that the Premier, today in the Legislature, will apologize for the despicable actions of the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. It is never acceptable for a member to call the cops on a constituent. Meet with that constituent. Help that constituent.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In this instance, the member has apologized. The reality is that we all have constituency offices. We all know that we have to take advice from the police in particular circumstances. This was not one of them.

The member has apologized and has offered several dates to the family for a meeting. I hope that the family will take the member up on that and will have a meeting with him.

We are focused on making sure that every child in this province with autism gets the service that they need. The member opposite, I hope, is having the opportunity to talk with families and to give them the information—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Wrap up, please, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We know that these are families that are in transition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

The minute I sit down and somebody else says something, I’m going to warn you.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been listening to the families. One of the issues that they have raised is the issue of direct funding—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. We’re inching closer.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the issues that families have raised has been direct funding. We’re talking right now about whether there’s a possibility of providing more direct funding. The $8,000 is direct funding. Is there a way that parents can have more choice? That’s the kind of listening that we’re doing because we want to make sure that we get this transition right so that every child gets the services that they need.

Election finances

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. And let me say, I’m disappointed that the Premier won’t apologize to the Palaypayon family, despite a direct ask to do so.

But we’ll talk about something else. Ever since we learned about the Liberal ministers—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is warned. Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Ever since we learned about Liberal ministers hosting $6,000 dinners with those trying to do business with the government, people have been asking questions. People have been asking: How much money would you have to donate to the Liberal government to change a regulation or a law? Well, one estimate that’s just out is $52,700. That is exactly what Ticketmaster and its parent company donated to the Liberals before the government made changes to ticket sale laws in favour of scalpers.

The Liberals continue to reveal themselves one scandal at a time. How can this government deny the blatant pay-to-play policy that they’ve operated under?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear that policy is made based on the evidence, based on challenges that are facing whatever sector, and have nothing to do with—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned. You’ve asked me to go there; I’m going there.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Policies have nothing to do with the fundraising that we do. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we’re in the process now of getting consultations in place to go out to the public, to have a conversation about how we should change the fundraising rules. There’s draft legislation that is going to be out to committee, and I look forward to the input from people around the province on things like third-party advertising and on the rules that should be in place around donations to all of our parties, because we all operate under the same rules.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: When the change was made last year, John Karastamatis from Mirvish Productions said he believed that the government caved to pressure from big ticketholder operations such as Ticketmaster and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. But wait a second: Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment happened to donate $30,000 to the Liberal Party. So that’s $52,000 and $30,000, for a total of $82,000 from those who benefited from this change. Maybe the Liberals didn’t cave to pressure, but rather it appears that government policies can be bought under this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has nothing to hide, why would they not welcome our call for a public inquiry? I’ll ask again: Will the government accept our request for a public inquiry?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Having thought through what I heard, I will warn the Leader of the Opposition: Do not go down there again.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we’re moving forward to reform political fundraising in this province with the Election Finances Act. We look forward to the conversation that will take place over the coming weeks with the public in Ontario about the changes that we’re putting forward, the banning of corporate and union donations, reducing the pre-writ spending limits and eliminating third-party advertising. We look forward to the committee discussions. We look forward to suggestions on amendments that might come forward.

I was disappointed to hear that the NDP actually voted against that consultation yesterday. That was surprising. But we are confident that with the intensive consultations that will happen over the summer, we’ll have a good bill going forward and we’ll be able to reform those rules so they will be in place for January 2017.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: As Gord Downie sang, “Isn’t it amazing what you can accomplish / When you don’t let the nation get in your way?” Well, isn’t it amazing what the Liberals can accomplish when they don’t let ethics get in the way?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Beaches–East York is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, isn’t it amazing what the Liberals can accomplish when they don’t let ethics get in the way?

The Liberals can “hang your head in woe” now that they’ve been caught, but it looks like they still think they have done nothing wrong—over $80,000 to the Liberal Party coffers from these companies, and then, with the stroke of a pen, this government changes the law in their favour.

My question is, if this government has done nothing wrong, if the Premier feels they have done nothing wrong, why would they not want to clear the air and support our call for a public inquiry?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take Gord Downie’s lyrics and his tone over the Leader of the Opposition’s any time.

We are moving ahead on reforming the election finances of this province. We’re going to do that with the opposition parties or without them. I hope they’ll take part. I hope that they will take an active

part in the committee discussions. But we’re going to be in conversation with the people of this province so that we can get feedback on the kinds of changes that they think are appropriate. We make policy separate from political donations.

At the same time, we believe that modernizing fundraising rules is what—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have three in mind. If I hear it again, you will.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Having said that, we know that modernizing the fundraising rules is what needs to happen. We’re moving ahead on that. We look forward to the participation of everyone in the House.

School facilities

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The government keeps track of the repairs that schools need, and that information is public. If a school has something called an FCI, facility condition index score over 65%, the state of repair of that school is considered critical.

Yesterday, I was in Scarborough, where advocates told me about Sir Alexander Mackenzie school, which has—

Interjections.

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

Please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —which has an FCI score of 85%, and Sir William Osler, which has a score of 84%. Remember, 65% is considered critical. These schools are beyond critical.

Why has this Premier let Scarborough schools fall into such a state of disrepair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The importance of an FCI, or the facility condition index, is that a board can track the needs of schools so that there can be an orderly use of maintenance dollars as those are available. It’s only responsible. It’s like a municipality having an asset management plan—understanding the condition of your assets so that as you make investments, you can do that in an orderly way so that it’s not random, so that it’s not haphazard, but it’s actually done in a way that is responsible. That’s what an FCI is about.

I am absolutely pleased that the TDSB still has an FCI, that boards across the province have those, so that as they make investments in their schools, they do so in an orderly and responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People expect the government to get the basics right. In our education system, making sure a school is properly repaired is one of the basics. For example, students in our schools should not have to be wearing winter coats during the wintertime while they’re in the classroom. But we’re seeing schools falling apart, not only in Scarborough but across this province.

Can the Premier explain how she’s getting something that is so basic so wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: As the leader has acknowledged, we in fact do keep track—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —of the facility condition indexes so that we have a common measure of the state of repair of schools around the province. We quite recognize that there are some older schools that require funding.

That’s why, in 2014, we actually announced an investment of $1.25 billion over three years, specifically for the repair of schools with high FCIs. For this year, the 2016-17 year coming up, that investment will amount to $500 million, half a billion dollars, which we are sending to boards. That’s based on the boards with the most high FCIs getting—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Schools in Scarborough have cracked walls, missing ceiling tiles, cracked foundations, broken doors—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just to make sure you heard me as you continued, you’re warned.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: These schools could quite literally fall apart unless they’re immediately repaired, and repaired properly.

This is not an environment that encourages learning, nor is it a proper work environment for educators. It sends all the wrong messages. Can this Premier tell students, their parents and their educators why she’s letting schools fall into this kind of disrepair?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I repeat: I would question the degree of disrepair. We do not have any schools that are going to fall down, but we have—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We are investing $1.25 billion. Over the last several years, we have invested $13 billion in school board capital, and that includes replacing schools that are in need of repair. But we’ve also directed boards that have what are called proceeds of disposition from selling schools that are no longer needed. That money must also go into school repair. So we have made significant, major investments in school repair.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Liberals won’t tell Ontarians if their local hospital is one of the hospitals that needs hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance in order to prevent an imminent breakdown, but they provide that information for schools. In fact, the Premier just said that that’s because they have to ensure there’s an orderly use of maintenance dollars. In fact, she just said it’s only the responsible thing to do in order to make sure that the repairs are done in an orderly way, not random, not haphazard.

Will the Premier admit now that she will not release information about hospital repair backlogs because she’s more worried about bad PR for the Liberal Party than she is about delivering the best care in our hospitals for our patients?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m so glad the leader of the third party asked this question, because it really demonstrates the depth of her misunderstanding.

The fact is that if she looks at the facility condition index of a school board, she will notice that there is no dollar amount attached to the school name. That’s for a very good reason, because the facility condition index indicates the work that needs to be done, indicates where the challenges are and indicates the rating of that school, but it doesn’t say, “And these repairs will cost X number of dollars,” because that would prejudice the process of getting that school fixed.

It’s a completely different process than the hospitals. It just demonstrates that she doesn’t understand how we would get those repairs done in the hospitals. It’s a different process. I think that if she looks at the FCIs, she’ll understand why they’re written the way they are.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, all it really shows is the depth of the arrogance of this government that responds to my question. It shows the depth of the arrogance of this Liberal Premier.

The Liberals will not tell Ontarians if their hospitals are up to code or not. In the school system, that’s something that is quite well known. We know that Ontario hospitals need more than $3 billion worth of repairs but we don’t know which hospitals, and yet the school boards publicly allow that information to be out there. But for some reason, the Liberals refuse to allow the same information to be made public when it comes to hospitals. We have the information about schools, but the Liberals will not provide it about hospitals.

So my question, again back to the Premier, and perhaps she will answer it this time: Why won’t she tell us which hospitals need the most repair work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party is simply wrong. You do not have the information about how much money it would cost to fix the schools on a facility condition index. The fact is that what the leader of the third party is asking for is for the whole negotiation process around the cost of repairs to be undermined by making that information public, and then prejudicing the process. The leader of the third party is saying, “It doesn’t matter what the negotiation is. It doesn’t matter what the cost is.

Let’s just bump the cost up as high as it can be by acknowledging what we think the cost is, and by attaching the name of the hospital to it.” That would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

There are no dollar amounts attached to an FCI from a school board. The leader of the third party does not seem to understand exactly the damage that would be done if we were to do what she’s asking.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think, Speaker, the lack of understanding that exists in this chamber is this Premier’s lack of understanding of the words “openness and transparency.” We say that and so does our Financial Accountability Officer. This is another demonstration of the Liberals refusing to give public information to the public.

The government is not keeping up with critical repairs and maintenance in our hospitals. And what is worse, in response to our freedom-of-information request, the government admits that they have no plan to deal with any future maintenance needs. That means the repair backlog is only going to grow and the situation in our hospitals is only going to get worse. We see what that looks like when we see packed ERs, fewer nurses and fewer beds. People can see the crisis. Every patient in this province can see the crisis, but the Liberals are pretending that it does not exist.

Will this Premier stop defending her inaction and start dealing with the crisis in our health care system?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I have a shingled roof on my house. It’s old and aging. In fact, I’m getting leaks into the top floor. I’m probably going to have to replace that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I got a lot of offers, actually, to provide me with contractors just then, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m just amazed at some of the comments coming from the leader of the third party.

The reality is, I’m not going to go out there and advertise that I’m prepared to pay $10,000 or $15,000 for a new roof. I’m going to seek out several competent contractors, get them to bid on it, and choose the lowest price of the one who can do the best job. That’s the same way we need to do it in the hospital system.

Anti-Semitism

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Premier. Last month while in Israel on a trade mission, the Premier affirmed this government’s opposition to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel when she said, “The BDS position is certainly not mine, nor is it that of our government. I entirely oppose the BDS movement.”

At the same time, back here in Ontario, this Liberal government was quick to vote down a bill that fought against this new form of anti-Semitism, a bill that would prevent of the province of Ontario from conducting business with companies that support this movement.

We all know that if an institution organized a movement to marginalize, demonize and physically attack LGBT communities, this government would be outraged, yet when a government-funded institution does this to the Jewish communities, it’s justified as free speech?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy is warned.

You have a wrap-up sentence.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Why did this entire Liberal caucus, with the exception of one brave member, refuse to support our Jewish communities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that it was a wonderful opportunity. I was honoured to be able to travel to Israel and I did, while there, make a statement about our government’s opposition and lack of support for the BDS movement. Any movement or any initiative that promotes anti-Semitism, racism, Islamophobia, sexism or homophobia, any movement that chooses to divide or encourages that kind of hatred, we’re going to oppose it and we stand opposed to it. With all of our policies and with all our fibre, we will stand against any movement that does that. That remains our position.

It was a huge opportunity for us to travel to Israel and to meet with businesses, to meet with people from higher education and to form partnerships based on our knowledge economy, but also based on our cultural ties that are decades deep.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: You say you oppose the BDS movement, but the problem is you opposed the bill. You opposed a solution to help combat the growing anti-Semitism in our province and across campuses.

A young woman named Danielle Shachar appeared at the press conference hosted by the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, Mr. Colle, and I, and she said, “Because of my vocal opposition to BDS, my name was featured on a white supremacist website that has accused Jews of being members of a reptilian race. I cannot wear a Star of David on campus lest I be harassed. I cannot identify myself as an Israeli without being called a murderer.”

She says that wherever BDS motions pass, violent anti-Semitism follows. Surely it’s time to take a stand. None of us would ever countenance signing a contract with a business that refuses to do business with somebody because it’s owned by a woman or a Muslim or any other faith, but somehow we hide behind free speech because a business is owned by Jews or by Israelis?

Premier, let’s do the right thing, join President Obama, American Legislatures and Prime Minister Cameron, and fight back against BDS.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s my suggestion: I made the statement in Israel because I feel very strongly about, as I say, any movement or any initiative that would support anti-Semitism, would support Islamophobia, would support racism. I feel very, very strongly about any movement of that sort, so my suggestion to this House is, let’s figure out if we can craft a motion that is not divisive, that is actually unifying in nature, that is not flawed and chooses to divide people. Let’s see if we can work together.

I made this commitment when I was on the mission that we would work with the opposition parties, that we would try to come up with a motion that would pass in this Legislature and that would reflect the inclusiveness of all of the members of this Legislature. I suggest that we try to do that within the coming weeks.

Mercury poisoning

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Premier: The people of Grassy Narrows have been told since 1970 not to eat the fish that they’ve relied on as a central part their life since time immemorial because of the mercury that was dumped in their river that makes them sick. They’ve been asking the Ontario government to fix it ever since. A report released earlier this week says it can be fixed, it can be cleaned and the fish can be made safe. Many community members are here with us today. Many of the youth who have travelled 1,700 kilometres are watching today.

Premier, will you look at these youth from Grassy Narrows who are sitting behind you and tell them that the rivers that make them sick today won’t be cleaned tomorrow and will never be cleaned in their lifetime?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is going to want to comment on this, but I just want to say to all of the young people and the people who have travelled from Grassy Narrows that this is something that is of great concern to me and to all of our caucus. I have been to Grassy Narrows. I have talked with people who have been affected by the mercury in the water and the fish.

I want there to be science that we can use to clean up the sediment and clean up the water and make sure that that ecosystem is clean. We have a report now that suggests that there may be a way of doing that, but the first thing the report says is that we need to look at some field studies, because it’s not conclusive. It’s not clear exactly how to do that without disturbing the sediment and making the situation worse. That’s the question we have to answer.

I do not want to make the situation worse; I only want to only work to fix it up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: When asked on Monday, the Premier said she hadn’t read the report. On Tuesday, she said she read the report, but what the report calls for wasn’t clear, even though the government has had the final report since April. On Wednesday, we learned that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had only received the report that day or the day before, when the government has had it since April.

The minister has called the science of the report “new.” This is not new science. In fact, it has been done in a number of communities across this province for decades. So let’s be clear: Enhanced natural remediation is possible.

Again, I ask the Premier: Will you tell the young people of Grassy Narrows when this government will start the remediation?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member opposite and to our good friends in the gallery: We are past the idea of doing more studies to look at the problem. We are now looking very specifically—working with Grassy Narrows First Nation and the federal government to figure out exactly what we have to do. It’s a complex range of sources there in Clay Lake and on the river. There are sediment and atmospheric issues, and there are ambient levels of methyl hydrate and mercury.

We are going to work very closely through the working group that has been established to ensure that we have proper solutions. The current situation is unacceptable, but we have to make sure, as the Premier said, that we’re undertaking efficient, near-term action, consistent with the leadership and desires of the community and with good science that will actually solve the problem and not make it worse.

I find it unacceptable. I will not see this continue on my watch, Mr. Speaker.

Victims of crime / Victimes d’actes criminels

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Attorney General. This week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Every year, this week raises awareness about issues facing victims of crime, as well as the services, programs and laws that can help these victims and their families during difficult—

Interruption.

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

Sergeant.

We’re not allowed to have displays in this place, please. If you are insistent on doing so, we’ll have to clear the gallery.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Turn them inside out. If not, we’ll have to clear the gallery, that section.

Question, please.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: As I mentioned, it’s Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. We also recognize the remarkable individuals who have put themselves on the front line to help others during crisis. These are often survivors of crime themselves and have raised the profile of victims’ issues in Ontario.

Today, we’re honoured to have this year’s victim services award winners here at Queen’s Park, including my constituent Michelle Barclay. Michelle is one of our unsung heroes and has worked tirelessly to help others.

Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney General tell us more about how this program improves services to victims and raises awareness about issues facing victims of crime in Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Halton for this very important question.

Our government is committed to increasing the effectiveness of victim services across the province. One step in achieving this goal is to help ensure that local agencies know about and learn from the successes of exemplary individuals and organizations.

I want to acknowledge the strength and courage of victims and their family members. I also want to recognize the volunteers, professionals and organizations for their tireless efforts on behalf of the victims of crime.

This morning, I was very proud to meet with all of our award recipients. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for all you’re doing on behalf of survivors in the province. It was very moving to hear all the good work that these people are doing in our communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the Attorney General. It’s unfortunate, actually, that our award winners are no longer in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that the week used to be called National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, but the name was changed to include the term “survivor.” That’s because we recognize that victims of crime are survivors. They’re able to overcome trauma and grow to a place of strength, healing and recovery.

That’s why Halton resident Michelle was honoured today. For 13 years, her selfless acts of kindness and compassion have earned the recognition of her colleagues and the people she helps.

Thank you, Michelle, and thank you to all of those who assist survivors with support and healing. Through events like this morning’s, which was emotional, we say “no”—no to the injustices and indignities experienced by victims of crime.

I’m proud our government has implemented initiatives like our action plan. Can the minister please expand on her efforts to support victim services in this province?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: A good question, Mr. Speaker. When we came into power in 2003, funding for victim services totalled just over $30 million. That number has more than doubled in my ministry to over $67 million.

I am incredibly proud of programs like our It’s Never Okay action plan against sexual violence and harassment, as well as our efforts on behalf of rural Ontarians, indigenous Ontarians and many others.

However, it is the organizations and individuals who work tirelessly on the front lines to help victims of crime when they need it the most. I said it this morning, and I’ll say it again today: The award recipients in the room today are role models for us all. Je veux les remercier d’être ici et je veux les remercier pour tout le travail qu’ils font dans nos communautés.

Energy policies

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. A recently published document by the Ontario Energy Board stated that the OEB intends to hide the cost of cap-and-trade-related price increases for natural gas by concealing them as delivery charges in ratepayers’ bills. This concealment suggests that the OEB thinks Ontarians do not deserve to know why their rates are going up and that the government is hiding the damage that its misguided cap-and-trade scheme will do to Ontario families.

The minister likes to state in this House that the OEB is there to protect Ontario’s consumers. How can that be if the OEB is saying that consumers should be kept in the dark regarding the effect the government’s cap-and-trade scheme will have on natural gas prices?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m not aware of the document, whatever he’s reading, or where it comes from, Mr. Speaker. I’d be happy to take a look at it.

The Ontario Energy Board has done tremendous service for the province of Ontario over the last decade or so. They are 100% independent. They represent the interests of consumers in this province. They hear hearings for rate increases and roll them back or even reduce them below what they’ve asked for. We’re very proud of their job.

I don’t know what he’s referring to, but they are not accustomed to doing the type of things that he’s accusing them of. I will certainly look into what he’s saying, but I have trouble believing that the Ontario Energy Board would not, in every instance, be 100% transparent with the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: You appoint the people to the Ontario Energy Board. Perhaps they’ve been taking their lead from your government, because you’ve talked about openness and transparency, and we’ve yet to see it since this government was elected in 2004.

While the minister may wish to stand aside and let the OEB conceal the truth about what will happen to energy rates in this province when cap-and-trade begins to impact our economy, we believe ratepayers have the right to know the truth behind the cost of their natural gas bill.

We know this plan will drive up the cost for ratepayers and make home heating and commercial heating in this province less affordable. That the OEB and the government are trying to hide this from ratepayers is completely unacceptable given that Quebec and California, your cap-and-trade partners, allow separate cap-and-trade line items to appear on their bills.

Minister, if you want to say that the Ontario Energy Board—if you want to do an advertisement for them, that’s fine. But you are used to giving directives. I would suggest it’s time for you to give one more: Make sure that cap and trade has a separate line item on natural gas bills because—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member would know that under this Ontario Energy Board, the price of natural gas has gone down by about 40%. It is down lower than it has been for decades and decades. The public is being very, very well served.

It is an independent organization. It goes through—

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As minister, I have 100% confidence in the Ontario Energy Board to represent the interests of the consumers of this province. I don’t know what document he’s referring to, but they go to every end of the earth to hear the public, to have delegations come in and, in the appropriate cases, to even reduce increases that have been asked for by LDCs and gas companies.

Energy conservation

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Earlier this week, the Environmental Commissioner said that conservation was Ontario’s cheapest energy option, and she’s right. But OPG is proceeding with an expensive nuclear refurbishment plan that will add over $5 per month to our electricity bills on top of everything else that’s coming at us—and that’s if these nuclear projects come in on budget. Speaker, we know nuclear projects never come in on budget.

When Ontario already has a massive energy surplus, adding billions to our electricity bills, why didn’t the minister hold back on costly nuclear projects so Ontarians can finally be rewarded, not punished, for their conservation efforts?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to quote from the commissioner’s report to begin with:

“Ontario has focused on conserving electricity and natural gas, via conservation programs delivered by electric and natural gas utilities and funded by their customers. Both gas and electricity conservation programs have consistently proven to be cost-effective. On the whole, Ontario’s investments in electric and natural gas conservation have made sense.” That’s the quote from the Environmental Commissioner.

The member will know that the projections, which have been validated by third parties, show that the cost of electricity coming from our nuclear generation after the refurbishment will be at 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That is a bargain for the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Just to note, conservation is a lot cheaper than that number. Conservation has worked in Ontario. We use less electricity to do more. But in Ontario, when we use less, we get to pay more. This is because the government keeps signing new contracts for even more electricity that we don’t need. Ontarians have to pay for this electricity whether we use it or not. Ontario now has an electricity surplus far greater than the total output of Pickering.

Instead of driving up our electricity bills even further, why won’t the minister allow our conservation programs to do what they’re supposed to do: reduce energy use and lower our hydro bills?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Again, a quote from the Environmental Commissioner: “Both gas and electricity conservation programs have consistently proven to be cost-effective when measured by appropriate post-implementation cost-effectiveness tests.” That’s an independent assessment of our conservation program.

What the member will not talk about is the fact that we have 60% of our generation coming from nuclear. Projecting in the future, it will be 50%, and it’s 100% emissions-free. We’re on the right page on this file and I don’t accept the criticism of the critic.

Health care

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, in December you released Patients First: A Proposal to Strengthen Patient-Centred Health Care in Ontario. At that time, I know that your ministry invited people from across Ontario to provide their feedback on this proposal to strengthen and integrate Ontario’s health system. In fact, I myself hosted a Patients First consultation in Etobicoke Centre at Humber Valley United Church. We had a wonderful turnout and some excellent input from a diverse group of constituents.

I understand that thousands of Ontarians responded. They said a range of things, including that they wanted a system built around the needs of the patient that represents the unique needs of all Ontarians, where home and community care, primary care and public health are streamlined, and that promotes health equity and reduces disparities. I know that in my riding I heard a little bit about the issue about equitable access to care as well.

Minister, could you please tell the House about the government’s plan to put patients first?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke Centre for this important question. I want to again acknowledge the many health care leaders who have joined us in the gallery today.

Later today, I will introduce the Patients First Act, which would, if passed, put patients at the centre of a truly integrated health care system. It would give Ontario’s 14 local health integration networks, our LHINs, an expanded role, one that connects all parts of the health care system—including, for the first time, primary care—to home and community care, to improve planning and delivery of front-line services for patients.

These proposed changes would mean easier and more equitable access to care, better coordination and continuity of care, and a greater focus on health equity and the social determinants of health. We would also honour our commitment to meaningfully engage indigenous partners through a parallel process that will collaboratively identify how we can achieve a transformational change in how care is accessed and delivered to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Minister, for that thorough and thoughtful response.

In Etobicoke Centre, we have one of the largest proportions of seniors in the province. I know that the issues you’re working on touch on people of all ages and all backgrounds, but certainly the seniors whom I represent in the community will appreciate hearing what you’ve just said.

Minister, I know that our government has worked hard to ensure that patients are at the centre of the health care system. You just referred to that. I understand that the proposed changes would strengthen local health care planning and increase efficiency to allow more funding to flow to where it matters, which is to patients and to patient care. I also have heard, and am pleased to hear that the government intends to honour the commitment to meaningfully engage with our indigenous partners as well.

Minister, could you please provide an update on the status of the Patients First Act?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again. Our action plan includes expanding access to home and community care and ensuring that every Ontarian has access to a primary care provider. The proposed legislative changes will articulate our vision for a better, more integrated system, a system that improves access for patients who need to find a new—or their first—primary care health provider close to home.

It will facilitate local health care planning to ensure that patients receive more equitable access to care, regardless of where they live.

It will establish a formal relationship between LHINs and local boards of health to support joint health services planning.

It will ensure that caregivers’ and families’ voices are at the heart of our entire system and that it’s accountable to patients and connects them with the care that they need.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Earlier this week, in responding to a question, the minister stated, “IBI and ABA are essentially the same thing.” Yet I have minutes from the Minister of Education’s Advisory Council on Special Education where your autism manager said, “Challenges with current autism services—ABA may not be intensive enough, and regression can occur between blocks of service.”

Will the minister admit she was wrong to suggest that ABA and IBI are essentially the same?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question. I believe what I said, Speaker, was that the difference is intensity. Intensity is the key factor in terms of responding to the individual needs of a child. That’s exactly why many service providers have had hundreds of meetings to date with families to talk about the individual requirements of their autistic child going forward, to plan their transition plan going forward and, for families who are coming off the IBI wait-list, to make sure they’re fully aware of their options in terms of the $8,000 of direct funding that they can use immediately.

Yes, we are developing a new program. It’s one autism program that will be more individualized and have one point of entry and one point of assessment in making sure we’re supporting these children going forward.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, the more meetings that you have, the more confusion there is and the more children are being kicked off service. Parents understand that ABA and IBI are not the same. Board-certified analysts understand that ABA and IBI are not the same. Your own children and youth autism manager understands that they’re not the same.

When will the minister start listening to the experts and stop removing children from accessing IBI therapy?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: To be frank, I would say, and I think my colleagues would say, that the more we meet with families, the more helpful that is. That’s the feedback that we’ve been getting. When members from all sides of the House need more information, my ministry’s liaison is there to help, the service providers are there to help and the regional offices are there to help. Speaker, at the end of the day—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The feedback we’re getting is that more and more families are understanding the path forward. More and more families want to have that clear path about how the system is going to support their child and to recognize that we’re moving to a system that recognizes that there’s no age cut-off for autism. Kids who are on IBI will continue on IBI, and they will have their ongoing clinical assessments to determine—

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

New question.

Highway improvement

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, unfortunately, just prior to the holiday weekend, my community was witness to yet another multi-vehicle accident that resulted in a fatality. This is the second such tragedy that has happened on the same stretch of road that has yet to be widened on Highway 3—the second in the span of a month. This is no longer a coincidence; this is a pattern.

The government’s own report from 2006 calls for the complete widening of that stretch due to the volume of traffic that it supported then. That volume of traffic has now increased by 30%. Despite the data, the petitions, the motions and the letters from all local municipalities calling on this government to fulfil its promise to our community, the Minister of Transportation refuses to act on the third and final phase of this important link in my community.

We cannot wait one more day. People are refusing to drive on this highway and people are losing their lives. Will the minister rise from his seat today, fulfil his obligation to our community and immediately call for the initiation of the completion of Highway 3?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Essex for not only the question today but for, frankly, the advocacy that he has brought to this particular issue.

In his region, I do understand very clearly, this is a vitally important project or initiative that the community is looking at, and I understand the urgency. I’ve said this many times in the Legislature and, frankly, outside the Legislature: Any time there’s a fatality or an injury on a road or a highway anywhere in the province of Ontario, my heart goes out to those involved and to the families of those who are involved. It’s one of the reasons that this government, under the leadership of our Premier, has moved forward so aggressively with a massive transportation infrastructure build-out.

In this particular case, in this particular part of Ontario, I know that the member knows that over the last number of years, our government has invested nearly $50 million to widen 13 kilometres of this already.

I know that we have more work to do. I understand that, and I’m happy to have a conversation with that member and, frankly, meet with municipal representatives from that community—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The voices of our community couldn’t be any clearer: We need that highway widened now. It’s a 10-year-old promise that this government made to our community.

I want to quote my predecessor, Bruce Crozier. He said, “The objective of the construction is to increase the safety of the 33-kilometre highway, the region’s main artery between Windsor and much of the county, including the towns of Essex, Kingsville and Leamington.”

If safety was the priority back when Bruce said it, it is most definitely the priority today.

The road is aptly named after Bruce Crozier. It’s called Bruce Crozier Way, due to his efforts to have that

section of the highway widened over his tenure of 17 years in this place. Bruce Crozier’s way was to stick to your promise, deliver on your promise and do what you say you’re going to do. If he were here today, his staff member said, he would be disgusted by the actions of this government and the lack of action.

I call on the minister—I implore the minister—to fulfill his promise, honour Bruce’s legacy, get the money flowing to our community and finish Highway 3.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Essex for the follow-up question.

I had the opportunity, many years before serving as an MPP, to work here in this building as a staff person. In fact, Mr. Crozier was someone whom I knew well and respected a great deal as, at that point, in my case, a much younger man who had the chance to work here at that time.

I understand profoundly the importance of the advocacy that Bruce Crozier brought to this particular discussion. The reason that we have been in a position to expand the 13 kilometres so far, and to invest the money to widen the highway so far, is because of the advocacy of that member.

I mentioned already in my first answer that I am happy to continue the discussion with that member and with municipal leaders from his community and his region about this particular project, because I understand the importance.

But whether we’re talking about this particular region in Essex or any other part of the province, we are investing billions of dollars in highways in every corner of the province. We will continue to do so, and I sincerely hope that—

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

New question.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Interjection: Welcome back.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: That’s right. Welcome back, Minister. It’s wonderful to see you here, back in the House.

Recently, Forbes magazine reported that organizations that are looking for a competitive edge have embraced diversity, and that leading enterprises have managed to tap into employing people with disabilities.

Actually, earlier this morning I had the pleasure of speaking at a conference organized by the Creative Spirit Art Centre in my riding of Davenport, which has done tremendous work to raise awareness of the barriers faced by artists with disabilities, especially employment barriers.

The Forbes report I referred to is an important reminder during National Access Awareness Week, which Ontarians all across the province are marking until June 6. This timing gives us a great opportunity to discuss what the province is doing to improve employment prospects for people with disabilities because, despite progress, we have much work left to be done on this file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: You’ve got to get used to that again, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me my first warning this morning. It’s evidence, I think, that I’m back, and I’m back here in fighting trim. I know that you probably didn’t like doing that.

In 2010, the Martin Prosperity Institute indicated that there’s $7.9 billion out there for us to gain in our economy if we’re to become more successful.

Mr. Speaker, there’s still more work to do and we’re determined to do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to thank the minister for that answer as well, and for all the great work that he and his ministry have been doing on this particular file.

As I said, I’m an advocate for people with disabilities, especially with the Creative Spirit Art Centre in my riding—having been at that conference this morning.

Minister, while these achievements are impressive, it seems clear that legal standards will be difficult to implement without full buy-in from the private sector. Lately, I was encouraged to hear that 25% of the largest Canadian public companies indicate an interest in this market. I spoke to you earlier about the artists with disabilities facing employment challenges and what they could actually gain if they were employed—to be able to bring economic value and to bring personal satisfaction to their work. But it’s always important to ensure that businesses do not see these standards as too cumbersome.

Minister, what are you doing to ensure—

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you to the member for her great advocacy on this issue. She’s absolutely right. Business buy-in is absolutely crucial if we’re going to be able to drive that cultural shift that’s so important for us to move this file ahead.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there’s still a lot more work to do, but we’re determined to make Ontario accessible and to continue our role as a global leader in this area.

Deferred Votes

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan / Projet de loi 186, Loi établissant le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1148 to 1153.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members please take your seats. Thank you.

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Ms. Hunter moved third reading of Bill 186,

An Act to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Campbell, Sarah

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Brown, Patrick

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 70; the nays are 25.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Deferred vote on the motion that the question be now put on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant plusieurs lois et abrogeant plusieurs règlements en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’énergie et la planification énergétique à long terme.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1157 to 1158.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On May 5, 2016, Mr. Chiarelli moved third reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning.

Madame Lalonde has moved that the question be now put. All those in favour of Ms. Lalonde’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Patrick

Campbell, Sarah

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 54; the nays are 42.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Chiarelli has moved third reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1202.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Patrick

Campbell, Sarah

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 54; the nays are 42.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1205 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We will be joined today by members of the Italian Fallen Workers Memorial committee. They’re here today to listen to a statement about Italian fallen workers. They come from the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence. Their names are Marino Toppan, Fulvio Florio, Mario Marra, Gino Cucchi and Palmacchio Di Iulio. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Members’ Statements

Public transit

Mrs. Gila Martow: Well, it’s kind of an exciting day, because I’ve been involved in Thornhill politics for many years, and people know that I’ve been questioning when the Yonge subway expansion is going to start moving a little forward. There was a great announcement this morning: $55 million toward the planning of it. Unfortunately, there’s no timeline. There are no dates set. All of a sudden, we have to have the downtown relief line built, which will take 14 years, before we can have the Yonge subway.

I’m asking if this government has discussed the possibility, which many experts have recommended, of a Yonge subway express route which would tunnel under the existing Yonge subway, as is done in many other cities, like Seoul, Korea. It would stop only at major stops along the way. It would be very fast. Maybe they could charge extra for it. It would stop at, say, Union, Bloor, the Eglinton LRT, Sheppard and, of course, up in Richmond Hill.

We all know that a Yonge subway expansion would get tens of thousands of commuters off our roads. Maybe we need to reallocate, as I’ve been begging, money that’s being spent on very low-priority bus lanes. They’re even starting, unfortunately, to build bus lanes on Bathurst and Centre Street for a little jog that will actually make the Highway 7 Rapidway longer for commuters, which is really counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker, I’m excited that we’re at least talking about the Yonge subway, but let’s stop talking. Let’s get the money for high-priority projects. Let’s get those shovels in the ground and the tunnels underground and get to work.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: Last week, I met with a group of mothers in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. They had one thing in common: They have children on the autism spectrum.

I have to tell you, Speaker, that their experience is very different from the picture that this government tries to paint. These are parents who know their children can thrive with IBI therapy. If they’re already receiving IBI therapy, they know, because they have seen the results, even after just a few short months. If they haven’t had the opportunity to start IBI, they know because they have faith in the professionals they work with, who have told them that their child needs IBI therapy.

Despite what this government tries to say, their children and thousands of other children across Ontario are being transitioned off the wait-list for IBI with no information about what their future holds. Eight thousand dollars only gets them two or three months of the therapy that they need and that is recognized by the professionals.

I stand here today and once again I plead don’t leave these kids behind. They were told by professionals that this was the therapy they needed—the ideal candidate, some were told—and then told, weeks later, that they are no longer eligible, just because they’re over the age of five.

I say to the members opposite, stop repeating the same tired lines, listen to your constituents, grandfather these children and ensure that they get the therapy that they need.

Don Ross

Mr. Joe Dickson: I would like to share with you a story about an Ajax hero. Don Ross passed away peacefully on Sunday, April 3, 2016, at the age of 85, the adored husband of Valerie and predeceased by his first wife, Shirley, née Leggatt; survived by his brother Murdoch and sisters Eunice and Elsie; proud father to Donna, Gary, Glen, Larry, Shawn and Kevin; and grandfather and great-grandfather to many.

I knew Don virtually all of my life, as he dedicated four nights a week for almost 40 years training and guiding young boxing athletes and seeing their progress. His wife and family came first, and he also took a great deal of personal pride in working with youth and seeing them grow, for almost no money at all.

Don was a hard-working employee at DuPont Ajax for some 35 years before retiring.

He was a true Ajax volunteer. There was a family celebration of Don’s life at our Legion, where hundreds of Ajacians created an overflow crowd that you simply could not move in. This man who moved mountains made these youth grow every day in personal stature.

In 1991, five delegates were selected for the Canadian Boxing Hall of Fame. The first name mentioned that day was Don Ross of Ajax, Ontario. He was recommended by several noted boxers, and it seemed to be a record at the time, as the entire body of officials unanimously sanctioned, by their approval, to welcome Don Ross into the Canadian Boxing Hall of Fame in 1991. His efforts had won him Ontario and Canadian acclaim. On that day, time stood still as his peers unanimously honoured him, Don Ross, forever.

May God bless you, Don. We miss you.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m honoured to rise today in recognition of ALS Awareness Month and in support of individuals and their families living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. There are as many as 3,000 Canadians currently living with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, named after one of baseball’s all-time greatest players, who died of ALS in June 1941.

The ALS Society of Canada, together with provincial chapters and support groups, raise funds in their community during the month of June through different campaigns, from planting blue cornflowers—which is the official international flower of hope for ALS—to the ALS bucket challenges, the ALS hike-and-cycle, or one of the 90 walks happening across Canada. Treatments have been developed for other difficult diseases, and we believe it will be developed for ALS.

I was proud to see many people participating in these campaigns and giving hope to the people living w