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

September 28, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Sep-28 (PDF)

L099 - Thu 28 Sep 2017 / Jeu 28 sep 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 September 2017 Jeudi 28 septembre 2017

Orders of the Day

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

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Public transit

Long-term care

Health care funding

Health care funding

School facilities

Opioid abuse

Taxation

Hydro dam

Birth certificates

Human trafficking

Energy policies

Conservation authorities

Hospital funding

Highway improvement

School facilities

Visitor

Correction of record

Visitor

Correction of record

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ Statements

Video game

Pension plans

Columbus Centre

Long-term care

Lively District Secondary School

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Clarington

Jason Scorcia

Zach Makes Tracks

James Potvin

Petitions

Highway improvement

Water fluoridation

Dental care

Hydro rates

Gasoline prices

Dental care

Addiction services

Hospital funding

Bruce Power

Government advertising

Private Members’ Public Business

Domestic and Sexual Violence Protection Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection contre la violence familiale et sexuelle

Transportation planning

Simcoe Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de Simcoe

Domestic and Sexual Violence Protection Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection contre la violence familiale et sexuelle

Transportation planning

Simcoe Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de Simcoe

Domestic and Sexual Violence Protection Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection contre la violence familiale et sexuelle

Appointment of temporary Financial Accountability Officer

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Representation Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la représentation électorale

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Consideration of Bill 152

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 27, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

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

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

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: It gives me pleasure to finally get up and talk about this bill that we’ve been waiting almost 20 years for in this province: Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Construction Lien Act.

There are basically three parts to the bill:

—the modernization of the Construction Lien Act;

—the introduction of the prompt-payment regime, which I think is the important part; and

—the introduction of a fast dispute resolution process while a project is continuing, the result of which is appealable at the end of the project, either through adjudication or through the court system.

A little history about it: The advocates have been advocating for changes to the Construction Lien Act for more than 20 years, and for prompt payment since 2011, so seven or eight long years that people are actually waiting to get paid on time for the hard work that they do. Whether that is the front-line carpenter, the small contractor, the medium-sized business, they’ve all been advocating for this for seven or eight years.

I had the opportunity this week, as I’m sure many of you did, to meet with advocates/stakeholders with respect to this bill. I met with COCA and ECAO on Monday, and I’m sure that we’ll be meeting with some other prompt-payment advocates when they have their upcoming lobby day while this bill continues to be debated and moves into committee.

So the government, at least from the NDP’s perspective, has had plenty of years: You’ve been in government for 17 years; people have been advocating for 11 years. In fact, the Minister of Transportation, I believe, when he won his by-election back in 2013, brought forward Bill 69. He became the minister, and it still took five long years to get this bill in front of this Legislature—actually, quicker than many of us ever get our private members’ bills into the Legislature, right?

Many of us actually have our bills sitting waiting in committees where there aren’t even any other bills and the government refuses, for whatever reason, to bring those bills forward. So I’m pleased to see it come forward, but as one stakeholder recently put it—

Interruption.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Is that me?

M me France Gélinas: No.

Ms. Cindy Forster: As one stakeholder recently put it, they are cautiously optimistic that this will actually happen.

Interruption.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Excuse me, can you fix that? I think it’s that.

Excuse me, Speaker.

Given how close we are to an election, is this one of these other bills that the government is actually now bringing forward, just seven or eight months before an election, to try and get some votes from this sector?

Anyway, the challenges and the problems that Bill 142 is addressing are not unlike every other problem or issue. There are many sides. There are many groups and individuals pushing for solutions that best serve their interests. Bill 142 amends the Construction Lien Act and is the long-promised follow-up to the review for prompt-payment practices in the construction industry.

The review was done in 2016, Striking the Balance: Expert Review of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act, authored by Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel. I’ve heard, when I had the meetings with COCA and others, that they were happy with the review and thought that these two folks really examined the issues that were important to the construction industry. They believe—some of them believe—that this does strike a balance.

Prompt payment is an issue for the construction industry. It refers to the requirement on business or contract owners, usually on construction and infrastructure builds, for fair and reasonable payment terms with their suppliers and throughout the supply chain. COCA told me that in the olden days, many years ago, 30 days used to be the norm for prompt payment, for people to actually pay their bills. That then became 60 days, 90 days, 120 days. In fact, I’ve even been told by one or two stakeholders that the government doesn’t pay their bills in less time than 90 days or 120 days. The government is actually going to have to comply with this law at the end of the day as well.

Now, Reynolds and Vogel pulled together an expert panel of 15 knowledgeable people to help them with the work. The final report finally was released and seemed to strike a fair and reasonable balance point among the competing stakeholders’ interests.

We know that the construction industry represents about 7% of Ontario’s workforce—more than 400,000 Ontarians work in construction—and yet delinquent payment in construction is rampant and a growing problem. The trade contractors are commonly forced to wait long periods of time, four months or longer, to get paid for work that has been certified as being complete. In construction projects, just like in residential building, there’s a holdback and there are payment periods. But even when the work is signed off as being complete, people are still waiting four months.

That doesn’t bode well for small and medium-sized businesses that may not have the cash flow of the big developers and builders in this province, and from out of country as well.

Ontario and Canada began to lag behind a majority of other jurisdictions that already have prompt-payment legislation. Forty-nine states in the US already have prompt payment; 31 states have it in place for the private sector. The US federal government has had prompt-payment legislation since 1982, and many European countries all have this legislation in place. So why is it taking so long in this great province of Ontario? Sure, we can pat ourselves on the back today for being the first province in Canada to implement it, but comparatively across the world, we are still lagging behind other countries.

The existing law here in Ontario, the Construction Lien Act, is costly. It’s costly: It’s in the courts, so we’re hiring lawyers and sitting in front of judges to make decisions on whether or not companies should get paid. In the meantime, some of these businesses are actually going out of business because they don’t have the cash flow or the ability to stay in business, and sometimes they end up losing their business because of all the money they’ve had to spend on legal fees trying to get the money that they were duly owed.

The bill only addresses non-payment as opposed to delinquent payment, and the lien rights of many in the industry will expire long before they realize that they will not get paid.

The delinquent payment drives up the cost of construction, I’m told, because now contractors are actually building delinquent payments into the cost of the project. If it’s in the private sector, individuals are paying more, and if it’s jobs in the public sector, the taxpayers are actually paying more, because the delinquent fees are now included in the costs.

It strains the cash flow for small businesses. Delinquent payment stymies new job creation and restricts investments in apprenticeship training, as the trade contractors sometimes have to limit their payroll commitments to meet their cash flow expectations. So that affects training of people apprenticing in the construction industry. The construction industry accounts for roughly 40% of all apprenticeships.

Late-payment practices erode competition, the level playing field for all of those who maintain honourable practices and businesses. They are actually put at a disadvantage. It can drive out the small competitors and push prices up.

When I talked to COCA I used an example of what happened in Niagara. It was outside of the construction industry; it was in waste management. We had probably a dozen small waste management contractors working across Niagara, in the various municipalities. Then the region of Niagara took over waste management in a triple majority vote. The first time that they tendered that big contract, they pushed all of the small players out. The company that won the bid put in a low-ball bid. I think it was for a three-year term. Then, at the end of the three-year term, all the small contractors were gone.

All the employees were let go from these various small contractors. They weren’t able to go out and buy the many pieces of equipment that they would have needed to do a larger area of waste management collection in our municipalities. Then, when the next tender came in three or four years later, it was double the cost of that first low-ball tender which actually forced out many small business operators.

The same thing happens here in the construction industry when you don’t have legislation in place to pay people in a timely way such that they can actually keep their business going, can compete for jobs. That, in itself, will create jobs and keep prices down for consumers.

Locally, I can tell you that in my region there are currently two major projects that are in litigation because of lack of prompt payment as contracted. A third project has caused the contractor to claim bankruptcy due to a lack of payment. I’m not going to name them, because they’re all in some kind of litigation, but three that I’m aware of, just in Niagara.

An interesting fact is that the entities not paying within the payment terms of the contract—normally 30 days—are in excess of 120 days. Locally, in Niagara, we know that these are repeat offenders that are not paying companies again and again. And they do this because there are gaps in this legislation, gaps that the government has known about for, well, at least seven or eight years—maybe 20 years. Although there’s been numerous lobby days on this legislation since I’ve been here for seven years, the government has chosen to do nothing about it. And who pays? The contractors pay. The employees pay.

The families of the people working for these companies sometimes pay, because those workers actually get laid off or there’s a work stoppage because they’re not paid, and so somebody is not coming home with a paycheque at the end of the week to feed the kids and buy the clothes and pay the hydro bills.

At the end of the day, it’s about workers. Everyone who goes to work, we say in health and safety, deserves to come home, and everybody who goes to work deserves to come home with a paycheque and to be paid in a timely manner.

I know the members from Hamilton, all three of the members from the Hamilton ridings, have talked about the Hamilton Ticats stadium. This building—a $140-million stadium that I think was built around the time of the Pan Am Games—saw some serious delays. Those delays were related to the lack of, or delays in, payments by the lead international contractor. It impacted down the chain until even the individual masonry workers and electricians weren’t paid for hundreds of hours that they worked. I don’t know if they’ve been paid to this day.

Another issue that one of the contractors brought to my attention was—the member from Niagara Falls raised the issue of benefits—health and welfare benefits. The big one that gets forgotten in this discussion is that when people are not being paid for contracting work, their case was that not only that the pay is withheld but in fact their benefits and benefit packages are not being taken care of. So this impacts the worker and their spouse and their family members, because suddenly they go to the dentist and guess what?

The benefit plan hasn’t been paid because that contractor doesn’t have the cash flow to actually make those contributions to the benefit plan or to make contributions, perhaps, to the pension plan. So at the end of the day, the workers and their families are being denied health benefits. Here I make my pitch for universal pharmacare. The NDP has certainly been very vocal in the last few months about a universal pharmacare plan if we’re elected in 2018—not a plan that applies just to newborns to age 25; a plan that would actually give benefit coverage to every person in this province, regardless of age.

During the committee hearings on the previous prompt-payment bill in 2014, a presenter from Wilkins and associates who was a third-party administrator talked about benefits and pension plans for the Ontario construction industry workers. What they said was that 2013 statistics for Ontario construction trade plans pointed out six things. Some 19% of the contributions due to the health and pension plans were late. So 19% were late, in the construction industry, to the plan administrator. That’s a significant number of people if you talk about workers.

It’s probably close to 80,000 workers whose benefit contributions were late. So hundreds and hundreds of hours were collectively spent by trustees, administrators and their counsels dealing not only with trying to obtain the contributions, these delayed contributions because contractors were not being paid by the big guys, but also with frustrated employees who found that they were without health coverage or that benefit coverage was jeopardized because their contributions to their benefit plans and their pension plans were not received on time.

So there are a few things, Speaker, missing in the bill. I know we’ll be going to committee and we’ll have the opportunity to be tabling some amendments that the stakeholders may or may not bring forward, but in terms of the central issue addressed by Bill 142, prompt payment, the bill is a marked improvement and consistent with what we believe the allied trade groups in the construction industry and in caucus have been calling out for.

While the commissioned expert report that Bill 142 is built from does call for and set out what the prompt-payment regime for the construction industry should look like, in keeping with other government legislation we’ve seen, it does not signal how this

schedule would be enforced.

So, as I always say, the proof is in the pudding—the regulations—at the end of the day, right? This is a framework, but until we actually see the regulations—and some of the members talked about regulations yesterday when we were debating another bill here in the House. I think that when bills are coming forward, the members who are sitting here who are elected to represent people should at least have some idea of what those regulations might look like.

The lack of enforcement will also be a big piece here. With so many government measures, this is a critical missing piece. How is the government going to monitor and enforce prompt payment? Are they going to be hiring enforcement officers? Is it going to be strictly a complaint-based system? Those are some of the questions, I believe, that aren’t answered. Without enforcement measures laid out explicitly, there is little expectation that the policy will even be effective, and few reasons to celebrate upon affirming that prompt payment, long overdue, is the right thing to do.

I did have some questions that I asked COCA when they were in visiting me this week, because there were concerns raised by other stakeholders about what happens if the adjudication process fails. COCA, which has been quite involved in the process, says that the contractor can still stop work if the adjudication resolution is not complied with. So if the adjudicator orders some specific rules around a project, and orders payment or partial payment, however that works, and it’s not complied with, the trade contractor can stop work.

Speaker, I am told that at the end of the day, at the end of the job, even with the adjudication process, the contractors will still have the right to go to court to enforce the adjudication ruling, and that the lien rights will still apply.

It seems that most of the stakeholders are satisfied with the bill. We’ll be hearing more from them, I’m sure, as we move into the clause-by-clause. I look forward to engaging with them again.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m very supportive of Bill 142. It’s good to hear that it sounds like it has support throughout the House.

This is a bill that talks about fairness. I am proud to be part of a government that looks at fairness as something that we’ve dedicated ourselves to as a government, as a Liberal Party. It’s something that we believe in, and we need to make sure that people are treated fairly when they’re involved in business out there in the public.

In my community, for example, I have a gentleman named Steve Michelis—he runs a company called Michelis Spray Foam—and we talk about this issue often. He tells me that within the industry there are many cases where we’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars—and this is a small business—that are not paid on time. It does have a ripple effect, not only for his company, but for his suppliers as well. Again, I’m proud to be part of a government that’s moving forward on this.

The NDP member from Welland said that we are the first in Canada. For Ontarians, we should be proud that we’re the first jurisdiction moving forward on this. I think it complements the other work we’re doing around fairness, making sure that we put forward a minimum wage that can provide people with the right type of life to afford, and the dignity they deserve.

I’m proud to be part of a government that has a pharmacare plan for young people 24 and under. The member for Welland talked about the NDP moving forward with a universal plan. If I recall, their plan that they originally proposed limited the amount of drugs that people could actually be eligible for. I’m proud to be part of a government that is really putting—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I rise to speak to Bill 142 and the comments made by the member from Welland. This bill is about jobs, and I hope the members will give me the opportunity to raise an issue related to jobs in my riding. I want to use my time to talk about CAMI automotive and the challenges that the employees are facing. They are out on the picket lines because they are fighting to keep their jobs in Ontario, and I support their efforts.

We make a quality car in Ingersoll because we have a hard-working and skilled workforce, yet those workers are worried the company will move those jobs, in part because of the high costs of doing business in Ontario, including high hydro costs, taxes and red tape. We need to support our local businesses and support the workers at CAMI in their efforts to keep these jobs in Ontario.

I was proud to sign the Canadian-made flag when I was at the picket line Tuesday morning. While we, as MPPs, are not part of the contract negotiations, government should be doing everything they can to keep the jobs in Ontario. Despite raising it in the Legislature multiple times, the government still has not taken action to address these problems. I want to again ask the government to address the high cost of doing business in Ontario for the employees at CAMI and the 1,300 people in Oxford impacted by layoffs taking place in the riding. We need to address these costs and red tape to keep businesses and jobs—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order. The next time I get up, someone is going to be warned. I just want to remind everybody we want it to be a respectful discussion.

I return to the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to again say to the workers that I will continue to support our local employees, fight for government policies that keep jobs in Ontario and remind people about the importance of keeping our local businesses and the people they employ.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, Madam Speaker.

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

M me France Gélinas: I guess, like most of my colleagues, I had the pleasure to welcome Denis Shank and a number of other people representing the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, better known as COCA, on Monday this week. They have been coming to see me faithfully every year for the last 10 years with one single issue. Their one single issue is prompt-payment legislation.

I cannot believe, with all of the different renditions of this bill that we have been debating, with all of the talking to the stakeholders in consultation and engagement and everything else you want to call it, that we have not done this yet. I think it is up to us in this Legislature to make sure that it finally happens for all of the reasons that we have heard.

We all have small businesses in our ridings. We all have small businesses who tell us that they feel like they are the ones who end up paying for the mistakes of the big ones. They are the ones at the end of the payment chain—we sometimes say the food chain—but they are at the end of the payment chain and they are the ones who don’t get paid.

I must say, Speaker, that the government of Ontario is one of the culprits. They are part of those giant payers who take a very long time making sure that they pay for work that has been done in construction. Let’s face it: We hear about infrastructure development all the time. What does that mean? That means construction. That means that you will have to pay for what has been built and constructed, yet we don’t have prompt-payment legislation, and business after business goes bankrupt through no fault of their own but because they don’t get paid.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciate the member from Welland speaking to this very important bill. I think she made some very good points, unlike the Conservatives, who refuse to acknowledge the importance of this bill. I just wanted to thank everybody who has been working on this. We’re talking about 60 key interest groups across the province involved in this legislation. I know there’s been an advisory committee set up by Sharon Vogel and Bruce Reynolds. I know a friend of mine, Jeffrey Long, a lawyer with Koskie Minsky, has been in the working group.

It is extremely complex, as you’re dealing with a vast variety of construction companies, legal entities, associations and construction groups. It is extremely convoluted.

That’s why to try and get some kind of an agreement, a consensus, has been extremely challenging, because everybody has a difference of opinion. But because of the hard work done behind the scenes—and I want to thank the Attorney General for taking an interest in this; nobody wanted to touch this because it’s so complex—finally we have something here that hopefully will work, because it is needed, because we can’t keep litigating.

As you know, it’s not only the big construction companies. There’s sort of a culture of litigation that’s developed because a lot of people, sadly to say, don’t appreciate the work that construction people do, whether it’s a plumber or a carpenter. They say, “Oh, well, you didn’t do a good enough job.” They don’t realize that these men and women who are laying tiles or working on roofs and all this kind of—they’re sometimes risking their life, even. Sometimes a lot of small proprietors or homeowners will say, “I don’t want to pay that person,” because they don’t appreciate the blood, sweat and tears that go into construction.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you to the members for their comments. I want to start, though, with the member from Oxford’s comments about CAMI. It wasn’t all that long ago, when we were talking in here about investing in the auto industry, that we heard from PC members here provincially that we should just let the auto industry die and that we shouldn’t be doing any investment. We’re hearing—

Interjections.

Ms. Cindy Forster: We’re hearing from the PC MP federally that he’s getting a lot of heat about the CAMI strike because he’s not out there supporting it.

To the Minister of Children and Youth Services, with respect to their government’s fairness—and this keeps in line with the other fairness things they’re doing.

Well, I want to go back to Bill 148, because, in fact, the government is discriminating against large groups of workers with their continued exemptions of people under the Employment Standards Act: equal pay for equal work, but only for temporary workers, which is long overdue, but there are lots of people working in lots of sectors who do not get equal pay for equal work; card-check certification, only for three sectors—in addition to the construction industry, when everyone was calling for card-check certification; the same minimum wage for every worker in the province, whether you’re a student or under 18.

So when the government says that they’re actually being fair, they are not being fair.

To the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and the member from Nickel Belt, I thank you for your comments. We need to move forward with this construction lien process, the prompt payment, and I look forward to seeing it in committee.

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I’ll keep a close eye on the clock. I have 20 minutes and, really, a very complex piece of legislation. I’ll try to work my way through it. I’ll keep an eye on the clock so I don’t go over.

I rise today to debate a bill that, if passed, would support workers and businesses in Ontario’s construction sector. The Attorney General told this House last week when he spoke that the construction industry plays a key role in helping Ontario’s economy thrive. There are more than 400,000 workers in the construction industry, and that accounts for almost 7% of Ontario’s GDP. That’s quite significant. The construction industry, in many ways, provides a solid foundation for our economy. It builds Ontario up, and it’s what keeps our economy thriving day after day, month after month, year after year. That’s why this bill is so vitally important.

If passed, our proposed changes will be the biggest changes in Ontario’s construction industry in over 30 years. These changes are quite important and, as I said, over 30 years in the making. Our proposal would update our construction laws to align with the best practices offered in many other international jurisdictions. That will create a better, fairer climate for businesses here at home and could help ensure that each and every worker on a project is paid on time, which means that they, in turn, can support their families.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the construction sector for a minute. To recap what Minister Naqvi said to the House two weeks ago: Ontario’s construction sector operates like a pyramid. The owner or developer enters into agreements with one or more general contractors. These contractors enter into agreements with subcontractors to work on different parts of the project, and so the downward flow continues as these subcontractors hire workers and suppliers to help them meet their own obligations.

So, if you mapped it all out on a piece of paper, it would look something like a pyramid, with the owner or developer on the top and contractors and subcontractors, and their subcontractors, branching outward and downward. The payment process would flow down the same route; that’s why we call it a pyramid. The owner or developer gets paid, and the money then flows downward, changing hands until everyone on the project has been paid.

When a company doesn’t get paid for their work, the downward flow stops short. Contractors don’t get paid, and they can’t pay people they’ve hired either. So this lack of payment affects cash flow, which affects payroll and delays payments needed for trade workers, suppliers and everyone else who has worked on the project. That can be devastating to workers and their families.

Working in construction can be tough; it’s mentally and physically exhausting, this field of work. What happens after a long day and after a long week when there’s no paycheque? You can imagine it’s not a good situation, and workers are frustrated. It’s just not right, and our government wants to do something about it to make sure that everyone gets paid down the pyramid model. So we’re doing something about it, Madam Speaker.

Our government introduced a way to make sure our construction laws are up to date and reflect today’s realities. We have a way to stand up for the needs of Ontario’s workers and businesses. If passed, the proposed Construction Lien Amendment Act would modernize construction laws to make payments and adjudication processes fairer and simpler, and work better for businesses, their employees and their families who are depending on them. That’s why this bill is so important.

Madam Speaker, the Construction Lien Act was created in 1983. That’s well over 30 years ago, and 30 years ago the world was much different. Business was conducted with a handshake; your word was your bond. A lot has changed since then. In 1983, contractors figuring out the cost of a project would bring out their desk calculators and slide rules so they could give their customers an estimate of what the price of the project would be. Plans were drawn up on blueprints. These, of course, were huge rolls of paper covered in meticulous drawings and figures.

And project schedules were developed manually, with dates marked in pencil on a calendar and then rubbed out as things changed. There was no construction estimating software. There were no digital building plans. In fact, computers were just basically starting out at that time period. In the past 30 years the world has changed; we have changed too.

The construction laws that worked for the industry back then aren’t what we need today. Construction projects and payment processes have become more and more complex, and late payments are a problem in every sector of the industry. The increased complexity of construction projects also means that resolving disputes takes more time than ever. It can sometimes takes years before people see the money owed to them. That means a lot of families have to put their plans on hold, in some cases indefinitely. Frankly, this is no way to conduct business.

Over the past decade, Madam Speaker, we received several proposals from stakeholders about how to change the Construction Lien Act. While everyone agreed that there were things that needed to be changed in the act, it had always been difficult to reach consensus on exactly what changes needed to be made, which in large

part can be attributed to the diversity of the industry. That’s why, in 2014, we announced that we would launch an independent review of the Construction Lien Act, including how we could address payment issues in the construction industry.

In February 2015, we retained Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel, both of whom are leading experts in construction law at the law firm of Borden Ladner Gervais, to head up this review. We made it clear to them that they needed to get this seemingly impossible job done. I’m pleased to say that they did it. After much research and consultation, Bruce and Sharon helped to reach a broad consensus on three core issues regarding this bill:

(1) Maintaining and modernizing the lien and holdback process;

(2) Establishing a new system for prompt payment; and

(3) Creating a targeted adjudication system to resolve these disputes.

They landed on a plan for a way forward and worked closely with an advisory group of dozens of stakeholders to develop a report that had a concrete, workable solution to reform Ontario’s construction legislation. One year ago, we released their report titled Striking the Balance: Expert Review of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act. Balance is absolutely the right word for this report, because its recommendations carefully weighed the many, many competing interests across the construction industry.

Our bill includes some key amendments that will modernize construction lien and holdback rules. Our stakeholders recognize the difficulties with the holdback process, as they agree that maintaining a fund for liens that can be claimed is important. But that same holdback process could also reduce the speed in which the payment flows down the construction pyramid. So, Madam Speaker, we want to ensure holdback fees are paid out as soon as the deadline to file construction liens against the project has passed or the lien claims have been resolved.

Contractors and subcontractors should be able to count on getting paid when they should get paid and know that they can meet their downward payment obligations in a timely manner, so they can pay the people that they employ below them in the pyramid scheme.

This new bill would also require surety bonds to be posted on public projects above a certain dollar amount. These bonds are currently used on both public and private projects. There is no legislation that mandates contractors to post them, so mandatory surety bonds would protect subcontractors and suppliers and make sure they get paid in case a project becomes insolvent.

We also heard that contractors and subcontractors want more time to resolve disputes out of court and avoid additional legal fees. We propose that we expand the timeline for filing liens and starting court actions from 90 to 150 days instead. We are also proposing that specific bookkeeping requirements are set out to better protect subcontractors if a contractor becomes insolvent. In this way, we are trying to ensure that the payment process down the pyramid continues uninterrupted.

The proposed changes would also ensure that the legislation reflects the structure of large public-private projects. Madam Speaker, we know that people want to spend as little time and money as possible resolving their construction lien claims. That’s why we’re proposing that the construction lien claims under $25,000 be resolved in small claims courts instead of going to larger, higher courts. We think this will speed up the dispute resolution process and make it as cost-effective as possible.

Finally, we are proposing that we change the name of the Construction Lien Act to be called, instead, the Construction Act, to reflect the broader range of issues it covers.

I’m just going to take a break here for a minute. Keeping my eye on the clock there.

Late payment is one of the most pressing issues facing the construction sector today. When a company does not get paid for work, it sets off a chain reaction that affects its own payroll and the payment it needs to make to others. This can be devastating for workers, for businesses and for the entire project.

Under the proposed legislation, the deadline for making a payment will be triggered by the first submission of a proper invoice, which would clearly state information like the amount owing and the payment terms, and invoices would be submitted monthly unless the parties set out different arrangements for their contracts. So we’re creating more rules to make sure that the money flows down and payment is made properly.

These changes would mean that both parties must negotiate and set out details before actual work has even begun. But if you can’t agree on payment timelines, both parties will have to follow the timeline for payments set out in the legislation. The legislation will act as a guiding way to make sure that the payments flow through properly.

For instance, once an invoice has been submitted to the contractor, the owner would be required to pay the contractor within 28 days. We have a solid number: 28 days, or 4 weeks, to pay that amount. That contractor must then pay his subcontractors within seven days of receiving the payment. And these subcontractors need to pay their subcontractors within seven days as well.

We’re setting out definite dates by which to pay the subcontractors that go below other contractors. This will help ensure that funds are not held back at the top and everyone is paid in a timely manner. Knowing exactly when to expect payment allows contractors and suppliers to run their businesses more effectively, make more competitive bids and meet their financial responsibilities in a timely fashion.

In the event that an owner or contractor fails to make a payment, mandatory interest would be added to the amount owed. Owners will be able to dispute an invoice by notifying the contractor within 14 days of any amounts that will be withheld from payment. If the parties don’t reach an agreement at that point, the contractor could refer the case to a new construction dispute interim adjudication system. This is new. We’re creating this new construction dispute interim adjudication system. I think it’s quite important to our new legislation.

This brings me to the next major part of the bill. Adjudication is a critical part of the prompt-payment system. It is the key to speeding up the dispute resolution process as well as enforcing the process. It also gives owners the ability to dispute invoices when they feel there is a problem with work done on a project or the amount owed to them.

Those in the construction industry who have experience in litigation, particularly on large or complex projects, will understand the time and investment that are all too often involved in resolving a dispute in court. In some cases, the process to get to trial can take up to a year. The new system we are proposing, if passed, will mark a dramatic change to the industry. While today it can take a year to get to trial, under the proposed legislation a qualified expert will look at the issue and provide an interim decision in just six weeks. Six weeks is a lot better than a full year—I think, again, another major change by introducing this new six-week timeline into the legislation.

Once an adjudication is finished, the parties can then decide if they want to take the issue to court or if they want to treat the six-week decision as a final decision. This adjudication system means that the parties do not have to wait for the issue to move through the court system that presently exists right now. The six-week decision can be binding, and if they want to stick to that decision, they can; it’s up to them. They can continue to work on the project without delay. If the result of the adjudication is that the owner must pay and the owner then refuses, the case may still go to court. But in the meantime, the contractor would have the right to suspend work.

As you can see, we tried to make sure everyone’s interests are covered with the proposed amendments that maintain a sense of fairness and balance. It has taken 34 years to get to this stage, to finally get legislation that works to make various parties happy and to agree on a new system of operating construction in Ontario. It’s important that we get every aspect of this proposed legislation right.

Should this bill move forward to the committee stage, which I hope it will, we look forward to further input and ideas from stakeholders to make this new legislation even better. We’re not ramming this bill down the Legislature; we’re saying, “Let’s go to committee and hear from other stakeholders, or the same stakeholders, to make the new legislation better or make amendments to the legislation.” If this bill passes, we look forward to seeing the difference it will make to the hundreds of thousands of people and families in Ontario supported by this critical sector.

I want to just say, in closing, that we need to update our laws to support the thousands of workers and their families who rely on the construction industry as a key source of their income. The changes we’re proposing to this bill, which has been two years in the making, will have an impact on nearly everyone involved in a construction project, from the companies that are involved on large, multi-million-dollar construction projects to the families doing small-scale renovations of their homes.

When I think of my riding of Scarborough Southwest, Madam Speaker, in my area there are both large, multi-million dollar construction projects and also smaller projects such as renovations being done on homes. Anything in this area will be covered by this legislation. I can tell you, there’s a lot of very large condominiums being built across the city, but a lot being built in Scarborough Southwest. When I commute back and forth from work, especially, I can see the construction going on, whether it be condominiums or people who want to invest more in their property and make changes or renovations to their home and decide to hire contractors to do the work.

So this represents the biggest proposed change for Ontario’s construction industry in over 30 years, and it marks the first-ever time industry stakeholders have reached a consensus on key issues such as modernizing lien and holdback rules, prompt payment and adjudication. This alone is a significant milestone.

Of course, our work is not yet done. We will need the continued support and advice of our stakeholders at the committee stage and will be making refinements based on their input.

It’s important because, as we work through this process with this very complex legislation, dealing with so many parties at one time, we want to make sure that we hear from the stakeholders at the committee stage—as we usually do, having them make presentations or submissions; some can be written instead of oral—and we listen and then, after we’ve heard from everybody, we then decide to go clause-by-clause through the legislation and, if necessary, make changes to the legislation, which I think is very important. Our government is aware of that.

We’re not saying this legislation is carved in stone and that we’re just going to go forward and put this through. I think it’s very important that we hear from the stakeholders and make changes if necessary.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to our continued work to ensure that our construction sector thrives and drives our economy forward, so I’m glad to hear the members speak today. I think all three parties are basically on the same page. We agree that we have to make changes to the construction industry and the Construction Lien Act. I think it’s very significant that the new bill will be called the Construction Act so people understand that here are the rules in Ontario for construction. Again, that’s a very important thing for this bill.

I’ve been listening throughout the debate on this bill as various people get up and speak, and I’m happy to hear that they are in agreement with the bill, for the most part. Again, there could be changes. I keep repeating this, but it’s important that we’re open to changes from stakeholders and those who present. The parties will have input at that point, at the committee stage, and then we can bring this back up for third reading.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker—I actually fit it in with a few seconds left.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to hear the member from Scarborough Southwest speak about the government’s willingness to entertain amendments to the legislation before us. Not unlike other members of the chamber, I’ve had the occasion to consult with members of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to share some of their input. There is a need for greater flexibility of timelines to reflect the very size and scope of projects in the industry.

Turning to the proposed adjudicative system, in particular, Speaker, both those bodies are concerned about written decisions of adjudicators that would be provided to the parties involved, but would not be made public, thus leaving no body of case law to help or assist in future disputes. I know that there’s a willingness on all sides of this chamber to have transparency and openness, but lacking some clarity in that particular area is a bit of an impediment.

They also raised with me, Speaker, that there’s no ability to appeal adjudicative decisions, but they may still take a case to court, and there’s no requirement to report back to the House regarding the activities or outcomes resulting from the decisions of the authorized nominating authority. Once again, that turns to openness and transparency, and I think we all want to work through to that aspect.

Lastly, both parties raised with me that this is the third time that the legislation is before the House and they hope that there will be a willingness on all sides of this House to proceed with speed to move forward because, not unlike the other speakers before me, there’s—

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s a pleasure to rise on Bill 142 to talk about this particular bill. Some of the examples of why we need a bill—it’s hard to believe you need a bill to get paid in the province of Ontario, but that’s where we’re at when it comes to construction.

Take a look at the Hamilton Ticats stadium, which went to an international company; I believe it was out of Spain, which made no sense to me. It wasn’t a local company here in Ontario. I can’t believe that somebody in Ontario couldn’t have built the Hamilton Ticats stadium. But what happened there is that the workers didn’t get paid. Electricians didn’t get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the project. There were delays, there were safety issues. There were all kinds of problems with the Hamilton Ticats thing.

Then what happened is, when they went to have their sons or daughters or wives go to get a prescription, their benefits weren’t paid as well. Not only didn’t they get paid for performing the work they did—their expert work—they didn’t have their benefits paid.

Then we had an incident—and it wasn’t just in this particular incident—where somebody was retiring on July 1. So he retired, expecting they were paying for his pension. Guess what? They didn’t pay his pension either. So now he was out of a job and he wasn’t getting his pension because the company didn’t put the contributions into his pension and benefits. That’s happening in Ontario.

I’m going to use my last 30 seconds here to talk about the CAMI workers, Unifor Local 88. I want to congratulate the leadership and their members for standing up for jobs in the province of Ontario.

Applause.

Mr. Wayne Gates: We should clap about that because they’re standing up for all of us.

I’m going to tell you, nothing makes me more upset than listening to the PC Party stand up and talk about autoworkers. That’s wrong. When I was at the bargaining table, they said very clearly, “Let the auto industry die. We don’t pick winners and losers.” So don’t stand up today and say you care about the suppliers and you care about the workers at CAMI.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning to you. I’d like to tell you that members of the construction industry who were here the other day are very pleased with this. One of the very first meetings that I had after I was elected was with groups from COCA that came to talk about this very issue. Late payment may not affect the very first person at the top of the scale, but by the time it trickles down, unfortunately, small businesses, usually small local businesses, don’t have the ability to get money to pay their workers or they have to go to the bank and borrow money and it costs them money.

They don’t have the cash flow and that is unfortunate. No one should have to go without their paycheque. That is wrong.

Also, big companies are waiting to pay perhaps the union dues or, as a colleague said, the benefits. Those things have to be paid by a certain time. One union told me that it’s over a million dollars that a business would have to pay. That is not fair that they have to arrange for financing and pay for that lateness.

I believe that there are many, many parts of this bill that will be a great improvement for the workers of Ontario. I thank the minister for working so hard on this and on behalf of all the workers in Barrie.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to speak to this. I believe this is at least the third time this bill has come to the House and it’s very important, particularly for those small contractors.

It really comes down to people. If they’re held back from getting their payment, those people who are actually getting their livelihood to be able to provide for their families, they are severely impacted, so I’m hopeful this will go through.

It’s very daunting. What I hear from a lot of small business people is that that environment—when you take something like the lack of prompt payment, so they’re not getting their cash flow coming through, and then you add on the hydro rates—300% to 400% increases under this Liberal government—it makes it very daunting.

They start to talk to me a little bit about when you’re going to sell Hydro One and lose that opportunity and the rates are going to go up. They talk about things like the Fair Hydro Act, where they borrowed $25 billion, which is going to cost our economy between $45 billion and $93 billion. That’s another cost that’s going to be added on to their business. So how do they stay competitive? How do they continue to go?

The potential of a 32% increase to minimum wage—and again, no one on this side of the House is arguing that people don’t need, certainly, a minimum wage to survive on, but to put a 32% increase in in 18 months—we hear continually that this government is out of touch and they are moving too fast.

They talk about amendments, and it’s interesting when they say, “We’re happy to listen to amendments, and we’ll make amendments.”

Madam Speaker, with the Green Energy Act, if we recall, they usurped all power from local authorities, from municipally elected officials, to actually make decisions in their community, and they’re the closest to the people.

I have sat through various committees where the—I think for one we had 52 amendments that we put forward, and the government did not accept a single one. So the trust factor of a government that says, “We will work with you. We’ll bring amendments. We’ll be willing to work with you”—that trust capacity has been lost, not only in this House, but across the greater province. Many of the business people and individuals out there are saying to me, “We’re struggling to trust a government that keeps telling us one thing but does the exact opposite.”

It’s harder to live in Ontario under this Liberal government, and this prompt-payment act hopefully will help at least our small businesses.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Scarborough Southwest to wrap up.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I want to thank the members from Whitby–Oshawa, Niagara Falls, Barrie and Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for their comments.

The member from Whitby–Oshawa mentioned the decisions being kept secret. Again, the point that I was trying to hammer several times is that we still want to hear from stakeholders as this process continues. When I spoke, I mentioned that we hired lawyers to look into this, and they came up with a report, and from that we worked on the proper legislation that we thought would make all sides happy, the people who are involved in the construction industry. So if there’s something secret about it—I mean, we can discuss it at committee.

The member from Niagara Falls: Hopefully a new system will prevent companies from Spain or elsewhere from just building something and then running away and not paying them back. Hopefully the holdback provisions here will keep the money in Canada, or in Ontario at least.

I echo the same remark that the member from Barrie said: The stakeholders, I think, are happy, for the most part. You’ve got different parties together here that are happy.

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound: We do want to hear from stakeholders. I’ve been here for quite a while, and I’ve been on committees, and I’ve seen changes made on all kinds of legislation. We want to hear some more from the stakeholders. I think there will probably be some discussion about changes. It’s very complex.

I’m looking forward to this second reading debate to be finished and taken to committee. I look forward to discussing it at committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

I recognize the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for poverty reduction.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: We wish debate to continue.

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

I recognize the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As always, it’s a huge pleasure to see you in the chair this morning.

What a beautiful morning it is today. After the July-like weather we’ve had for a few days—of course, we’re grateful for it as well, but we’ll pay for it in January—it is a bit of a pleasure to wake up this morning and walk to Queen’s Park with that hint of the fall season in the air, with a little bit of a nip in the air, and to come here and participate in debate in this beautiful House, in this esteemed House, and to be able to contribute to debate for Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Construction Lien Act, 2017.

This act impacts the Condominium Act, 1998; the Construction Lien Act; the Courts of Justice Act; the Land Titles Act; the Limitations Act, 2002; the Mining Act; the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act; the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015; the Registry Act; and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

On behalf of the constituents of Niagara West–Glanbrook, it’s great to be able to speak to an issue that has a huge amount of impact not only in Niagara West–Glanbrook, not simply the broader province, but really the broader country to an enormous extent. This is an issue that I’ve indeed had personal experience with. I had the opportunity to see the negative impact of delayed payment in my own past career. To be able to stand today and speak to this legislation is a real pleasure and something that I hope my constituents will be able to benefit from as well.

In the past, before I was elected, I worked not only in federal politics but also in demolition and excavating, as well as landscaping and framing prior to that point, throughout high school, during summers and a little bit part-time as well. I had the opportunity to work in the construction industry, where I saw the negative impact that delayed payment had on the enormous amount of small business owners in the construction industry specifically.

The negative impacts have not been overblown in debate here today. In fact, if anything, I would say that negative impact has been perhaps underrepresented—not intentionally, but I think that when we sit here in this place, sometimes these issues seem a bit distant to us, and we may not always be able to realize how impactful they are on a husband, a father or a mother, a wife who is a business owner and is working very, very hard to make a go of a small company—perhaps a framing company such as the one I worked for, or a small excavating company such as another one I worked for.

The reality is that when this payment is delayed—as it often is, unfortunately, for extended periods of time—it has a negative impact on the cash flow of that business, which has a huge impact on the ability of that business to continue with production, to continue with paying their employees. In fact, I’ve been in a situation myself where I was in a very close relationship with my employer and he asked me if I would be willing to wait for my paycheque a couple of extra weeks, because he was waiting on cheques from companies that he was subcontracting for.

I’ve been in a situation where this had a very real impact on me in a very personal way and I can definitely understand the concerns of the construction industry when it comes to delayed payment.

I appreciated the chance earlier this week to meet briefly with COCA, as I’m sure many members in this House did, and had a chance to speak with some of those members and the organizations they represent in a broad variety of fields with a wide variety of expertise. I really do appreciate all of the significant work they put into meeting with members of provincial Parliament here in the Ontario Legislature to brief them about what the struggles are in the construction industry, not only on this issue but on a wide variety of issues.

I wanted to speak very briefly, before we get into the nitty-gritty of this legislation, what it entails, what the positive aspects are and where areas are where, perhaps, I could make a couple of suggestions to the government—I did want to note that this isn’t the first time that this legislation has been debated here in the House. This isn’t the first time that people have brought forward the reality that delayed payment has a negative impact. This isn’t the first time: Prior Liberal governments have claimed to want to solve this issue.

I’m not denigrating their desire to help the construction industry, but it is the third time that we’ve come to this place, that we’ve had this debate, and then the legislation didn’t go through the House, with both past attempts unfortunately dying on the order table due to elections being called by the Liberal government.

I don’t wish to be pessimistic, but with another election on the horizon, there is a possibility for history to repeat itself once again. I’m sure that we wouldn’t wish to see this worthy endeavour die on the order paper. I don’t wish to be rude and I don’t wish to indulge in floccinaucinihilipilification, but it is indeed a possibility and one that I think we have to be aware of, that this legislation wouldn’t go through the House in a speedy manner. But I hope we do see it go through in a very speedy manner.

The PC Party has long been a strong advocate, a long-time advocate and passionate advocate to bring prompt-payment legislation to Ontario, because we recognize the impact that this has on small business and, really, larger businesses as well. We recognize that the impact this has is not simply business in a broad sense but really on individuals in their day-to-day, as my own personal experience testifies to, being able to have that paycheque come through and being able to count on reliable payment for services rendered, for goods provided.

This bill contains three major components, with the first part being the prompt-payment regime,

part 2 containing the creation of the authorized nominating authority to manage the new adjudication model created under this act, and

part 3 outlining the adjudicative process, and I’ll get to that in a couple of minutes. I still do have some time.

I wanted to very briefly touch on a report that was put forward a couple of years ago by Prism Economics and Analysis. They spoke, in 2013, about the need for prompt-payment legislation in the construction industry. Allow me, Madam Speaker, if you will, the opportunity to contribute to debate today with some brief readings from this report. This report, I think, is very informative on some of the concerns that the association and the Ontario General Contractors Association as well as the National Trade Contractors Coalition of Canada have had with delayed payment, with some of their concerns and the need for prompt-payment legislation.

I’ll read from page 3 very briefly, where it states:

“Late payment practices are an important issue for the Ontario construction industry. These practices have negative consequences for the construction industry and for the broader economy, including:

“—reduced employment in the construction industry,

“—less investment in apprenticeship,

“—greater use of ‘independent operators’,

“—less investment in machinery and equipment and hence lower productivity,

“—higher construction costs because of the need to factor in late payment risk,

“—smaller bidding pools because payment risk forces contractors to limit the amount of work they take on, and

“—an erosion of the principle of a level playing field by rewarding those contractors that delay payments without justification while penalizing those contractors who are forced to cope with late payments.”

I think we can all agree that those are some significant issues that are brought forward in this report. The report goes into quite a significant amount of detail. It’s 44 pages, and I would encourage members in this House, and especially those who take the opportunity to study this legislation in committee, to perhaps download a copy of this report, to read it through for themselves.

It lays out very simply, but also in great detail, the unique structure of the construction industry that serves to amplify the consequences of late payment and how the construction industry is very distinct from other industries because of its complex system of contracting and subcontracting, which maximizes the benefits of specialization—but also, due to function, this system of contracting and subcontracting requires that cash flow through many levels of a pyramid structure.

Obviously, any delay in the payment of that cash flow or any blockage in the cash flow structure has an immediate and negative impact on a lot of people who it fails to fall through to as well. Anywhere an interruption in the payment flow is created, this has a cascading effect down the rest of the contracting and subcontracting chain.

What this bill will do is create—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it is 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m very pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Darryl and Cassandra Smith, who are joining us. Darryl is on the board of directors at Sonshine Daycare in Mount Brydges and Cassandra works at Sonshine Daycare, a wonderful daycare facility in Mount Brydges, Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to introduce the parents of page captain Rachel McNeilly this morning. We have Kerry and Kevin Lehmann. They’re sitting in the gallery here, and we’re all going to have lunch together after question period. Welcome to question period and Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s my privilege to welcome members from LawPRO. They were here this morning: Ray Leclair and Dan Pinnington. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Page captain Adam Pariag has a number of members of his family here today in the members’ east gallery: his parents, Rayanna and Jeffrey Pariag; his sister, Sarah Pariag; grandmother Zoreena Abas; and grandparents Lucia and David Pariag. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us today from Cobourg, Ontario is Kristen Ellison, and also Rebecca Darwent, who is my new policy person at the ministry. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today, I would like to welcome three guests from my riding of Barrie to Queen’s Park: The amazing Zach Hofer, who I will be making a statement about later, is here, joined by his mother, Shelly Hofer, and their family friend Sylvia Stark.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park, visiting from Thunder Bay, my son, Dustin Mauro, in the members’ east gallery.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Please welcome ambassadors from the MS Society of Canada, who will be here throughout the day meeting with members to talk about the challenges faced by Ontarians with multiple sclerosis.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As the Attorney General, I also want to welcome our friends from LawPRO who are here today and who hosted a breakfast this morning. Please welcome Dan Pinnington and Raymond Leclair to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

It’s therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Public transit

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, the public accounts committee passed a motion to review the GO station the minister approved in his riding. But let’s not forget, this isn’t the first time the minister has put his own interests ahead of better transit.

Two years ago, Mayor Tory called for the subway to York University to be opened before the rest of the line was finished to Vaughan. Mr. Speaker, did the minister block that project as well because the subway wasn’t ready in Vaughan?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the question from the member. I actually find it remarkable that somebody from that caucus, in particular, has the audacity to stand up and ask a question about the construction of a subway in the GTA.

Speaker, I’ve actually lived here in this region my entire life, and I seem to recall a really dark period for transit investments here in the GTHA. That would be the period in the mid-1990s, when the Conservative Premier of the day, Mike Harris, chose to kill and fill the Eglinton subway. And here we are now, a generation later, trying to make up for that disastrous decision made by a Conservative government and a Conservative leader with respect to transit.

I look forward to the next two questions on this topic.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: Two and a half years ago, the mayor said that he was open to all options to stop the bleeding of the extension, including a phased opening that would see trains turn around at York University to start. But the minister rejected that plan. He said that Ontario has the expectation that the project would be running all the way to York region.

So here we are, three years later, and the minister appears to be making decisions based solely on his riding. Mr. Speaker, how does the minister defend his history of politically motivated decisions?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Based on my answer to the first question, it shouldn’t come as a shock to anybody here in this chamber that a Conservative MPP would be so horribly wrong about transit here in the GTA. That member, if he knew—and his party and his leader, Patrick Brown. If they knew just a little bit about transit projects like the Toronto-York-Spadina subway extension, they would know that it’s a project that is being led and managed and built by the Toronto Transit Commission—the TTC, that is, Speaker.

But let me say: The really exciting news—unlike the Conservative Party, Speaker—about subway expansions here in the GTHA is that because of Premier Kathleen Wynne and because of other former Liberal Premiers and other former Liberals from this side of the House, in less than three months, on December 17, the Toronto-York-Spadina subway extension will actually open for service here. Speaker, this is a very real accomplishment: the single largest transit accomplishment in this region in my entire lifetime, no thanks to members from that party.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Again to the minister: Ethics and accountability are rare on the Liberal benches. The minister shows it time and time again as he puts himself above the transit needs of Ontario. If he hadn’t got caught, taxpayers—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Steve Clark: If he hadn’t got caught, taxpayers would have been on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. How many more millions of dollars will this minister cost taxpayers for his own personal political benefit?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: You know, Speaker, the really funny

part is that it’s funny to hear that member from Leeds–Grenville ask a question about how many more things, how many more times? Guys, I guess the question I have back is: How many more times will members of the Conservative caucus approach me about making sure we invest in transportation in their riding? I look at every single member on that side of the House—every single one—and I can I think of virtually all of you, over the last three years and a few months since I became the Minister of Transportation, regularly sending me letters, making requests—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case you have to be reminded, I’m standing.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I was saying, it’s a shameful example of a completely ridiculous question from the member from Leeds–Grenville when that member and his colleagues and his leader and his transportation critic on a regular basis have applauded decisions that suit them and their narrow political interests and they try to hold me to account.

Speaker, at the end of the day we are building transit and transportation in every corner, including in Conservative ridings, and we’re going to keep—

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

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last spring, we heard the minister promise to support my private member’s bill to provide guaranteed funding for seniors in long-term care. This was after he was exposed for underfunding them by so much that even prisoners were being fed better than our seniors in long-term care. Imagine the difference in the quality of life and better care this funding guarantee would give our seniors. On their behalf, I ask: When will the minister enshrine in law a guarantee that spending on seniors in long-term care keeps pace with inflation?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Perhaps the member opposite missed our spring budget, where we increased the food allocation for residents of long-term care by 6.5%. In fact, we increased it at a level that was greater than what the sector themselves had asked for.

We continue to make investments. In fact, that was part of a more than $80-million new investment this year alone in such issues as not just the quantum towards food in long-term care but also for behavioural supports for seniors in long-term care, as well as for the overall resident needs and for specialized care.

We have more than doubled our investment in long-term care since coming into office. We continue to make those important investments.

I look forward to the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: You only did it because we’ve shone the light on you and shamed you into it.

Guaranteed funding is about making a difference, taking responsibility and showing competence so that seniors can finally get better care, better oversight and protections—all of which they deserve.

Considering the minister admitted in question period on September 14 that he has abdicated responsibility in protecting seniors from abuse and neglect by not enforcing the law 100%, I want to know: Will he finally agree to act as a genuine guardian of our seniors and protect them by enshrining in law guaranteed funding of long-term care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I obviously don’t have the same recollection as the member opposite does. I take my responsibility for seniors in long-term care very, very seriously.

That’s why, since taking office, we’ve built more than 10,000 new long-term-care beds. That’s why we’ve redeveloped more than 13,000—

Mr. Bill Walker: Where? Where?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I have the list right in front of me, and I’m happy to talk to the member opposite afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve redeveloped more than 13,000. We’ve committed to redeveloping 30,000 by 2025, so our investments in long-term care are substantial. They are continuing, including the $80 million that I referenced in the spring budget that that member voted against.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member from Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back to the minister: Sunday is National Seniors Day, and there’s a lot to celebrate. Stratford, which I represent, was again named one of Canada’s best places to retire.

But seniors are worried that they won’t get the long-term-care beds they need, and it’s no wonder. Investment has dried up, even as the need keeps going up. The government is considering a proposal to transfer up to 50 of our beds out of Perth county and into London, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More long-term-care homes are going to close when their licences expire.

Will the government stop the bed transfer?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite, I believe, knows that it was under my direction that I changed the process when we do receive proposals from the long-term-care sector. This isn’t a proposal from the government; this is an operator of a long-term-care home or a number of long-term-care homes. When we receive those proposals, I have directed that there be a substantial community consultation led by the LHIN. We take into account that community consultation after we’ve received that proposal before we go any further at all.

Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made with regard to any potential transfer. It’s simply a proposal that has come to us, without us requesting it. It’s a proposal that has come to us making some suggestions in terms of how that redevelopment might occur. But we are in the phase and, importantly, the critical stage of getting that community consultation so we’ll understand what the impact on the community might be.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. For almost four years the Premier and her health minister have denied that there’s a crisis in our hospitals and in our long-term care. She told nurses and health care workers that they were wrong. She told doctors that they were wrong. She told hospital administrators that they were wrong. She told journalists and opposition politicians that they were wrong. She told people lying in hallways or broom closets instead of rooms that they were wrong.

Yesterday, she finally admitted that there is a crisis in our hospitals and our long-term-care system. Will the government now admit that this crisis is of their making, the result of years of budget cuts and freezes and negligence on behalf of the Premier and her government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I regret the fact that the leader of the third party wasn’t here yesterday for her party’s two lead questions.

Interjection: You can’t say that.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I apologize, Speaker.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: What I find absolutely shocking about the third party is that when this government comes forward with solutions to address the very capacity challenges that that member just referenced, her party opposes them. When that party opposes a proposal that has come from half a dozen hospitals in the GTA, in the Toronto Central LHIN, a proposal to increase their capacity and alleviate the very pressures—her party has specifically, emphatically opposed that proposal which will relieve the precise thing that we’re trying to solve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, I was in Brampton with a woman named Sunanda. She told me about being left in the hallways of Brampton Civic Hospital for two and a half days. She couldn’t sleep because it was too loud. She was shuffled around constantly from hallway to hallway to hallway, sometimes in the middle of the night. She didn’t get any food for the first day and a half that she was in that hospital.

Sunanda’s story is tragic and, sadly, not unique in Ontario. The Premier’s plan to maybe, one day, open 150 beds in Toronto, with no time frame or guarantee that will actually ever happen, will not help Sunanda and patients like her.

Does this government really think that 150 beds will fix the province-wide crisis that they’ve created in our hospitals and long-term-care system?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Only the NDP would see utilizing resources, increasing capacity and helping patients—only the NDP would see that as a problem. It was emphatically clear yesterday, despite many, many months of the NDP asking this government to increase capacity, when we in fact are entertaining and considering a proposal that comes from the Toronto Central LHIN, that comes from a number of hospitals themselves, which will do precisely what they’ve been asking for, only the NDP would emphatically and categorically reject that proposal.

I can confidently tell the public and the Legislature that those 150 beds—the proposal that’s being put forward to us by a number of hospitals in the GTA and the Toronto Central LHIN would result in those beds being available this calendar year.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What’s emphatically clear is that 150 beds are not going to address a 30,000-person wait-list in long-term care that is growing each and every month in the province of Ontario.

Brampton Civic Hospital has been overcapacity for more than two years. That’s not the NDP saying that, Speaker, or even Bramptonians like Sunanda; in fact, that fact comes from the hospital itself. But it’s not just Brampton Civic either. Hospitals in Kitchener, Brant, London and Sudbury are all overcapacity on a daily basis in this province. It is the new normal in Ontario.

The 150 beds are not a real plan. What’s the government doing right now to alleviate this entire crisis that stretches from one end of the province to the other?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m glad now that the third party appears to support the proposal coming for the Finch site of the Humber River Hospital.

The fact is, from April through July, William Osler, which includes the Brampton site, had an 86% occupancy, which, in fact, was less than it was last winter. The leader of the third party knows that we’ve made a $24-million investment that was referenced in the budget that they voted against earlier this year specifically to increase capacity and to provide specialized transitional support, including rehabilitation and individual support for individuals who are non-acute, who perhaps reside in hospital—perhaps not—to actually get that focused care.

So we’ve reached out across the province for precisely that. We’re not going to do what the NDP did when they were in power. They closed more than 9,000 beds.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. The fact is that this government’s last budget shorted the hospital system by $300 million, which they requested from the government. That’s the fact, Speaker.

Hospitals are desperately overcrowded. Patients are being left in hallways for days. People are waiting in emergency rooms for 12 hours or more. The wait-list for long-term care, as I mentioned earlier, is 30,000 people long right now, and we have a government that is maybe offering 150 beds.

The Premier is scrambling to find a Band-Aid after years of making this problem worse. Can the government tell the people of Ontario why they caused this crisis to happen in the first place and refuse to take real, immediate action to help those who are sick in our province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I absolutely appreciate the change of heart of the leader of the third party and her caucus. Yesterday, the proposal for 150 beds in the Toronto Central LHIN was described by them as mothballing, as warehousing. I’ll give the leader of the third party the opportunity in her supplementary, but I believe they’ve had a change of heart and they see that this actually will contribute to the capacity challenge that is faced for a number of reasons across this province.

We’re working across the province with our LHINs, with our hospitals. We specifically have asked our hospitals to come forward with proposals that they believe will not only improve the quality of care for those in the hospital, for non-acute patients, but provide those focused transitional high-level care opportunities that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The NDP is committed to funding hospitals, at a minimum, to the rate of inflation and population growth, and to meet the unique needs of rural, small and northern communities. It is a first step in undoing the damage done by decades of Liberal and Conservative cuts. If the Premier is as concerned as she says that she is about the state of our hospitals, then what I have to ask is: Will this government commit right now to providing the immediate emergency relief that the Ontario Hospital Association has asked for, and make sure that, at a minimum, the ongoing funding keeps up with inflation, population growth and the unique needs of the communities in our province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We provided our hospitals with more than $500 million in the spring budget and increased our capital investment by $9 billion, so that we’re actually building new—and expanding—hospitals to the tune of $20 billion over the next decade.

That $500 million includes improving access and expanding services for cancer treatment, for diagnostic treatment, for emergency services, for wait time reduction. For the north, for the south, for the east and the west of this province, we’re making those investments, including those that are specific to addressing the capacity problem that a number of hospitals that I have acknowledged in the past do face, because of a growing population, because of an aging population, because of the need to make sure that we continue to make those investments, the investments that they voted against earlier this year.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the government won’t even commit to the keeping up with inflation, one wonders how they expect hospitals and front-line health care workers to provide the care that people need. This is how we got into this mess in the first place.

The last Conservative government fired 6,000 nurses, they closed 28 hospitals, and they slashed over 7,000 hospital beds. And this Liberal government has cut or frozen hospital budgets for years and years on end; a decade of freezes and cuts. One hundred and fifty beds is not a credible plan to fix this entire mess when there are thousands of Ontarians crammed into the hallways of almost every hospital in this province.

Does the Liberal government sincerely believe that if they reopen a few beds in one hospital the crisis that they’ve created in our province will be solved?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Since they brought up the Conservatives, I need to remind Ontarians about the NDP government when they were in power. They delisted 10% of all the drugs on the formulary. They delisted home care from OHIP. They closed 24% of the acute hospital beds in this province. They closed 13% of the mental health beds in this province, for a total of 9,645 beds. In their last budget, they reduced hospital funding by 1%, and they reduced total health care spending, in their last budget as well, by 1% for the second year in a row.

That’s their legacy. They had a minister of cuts that was going to take an additional $500 million out of health care and education should they have been elected in 2014. That’s their record; that’s their legacy. They’re the last people that I’m going to take advice from.

School facilities

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Acting Premier: Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition had some questions about the impact of the heat wave on our students.

Recently, a local parent reached out to me to voice his concerns. Last Thursday, a student in my riding brought a thermometer to school. The parents were concerned about the heat. At 11:30 a.m., the thermometer read 32 degrees. The following afternoon, it read 34 degrees.

Acting Premier, I know that when your office gets too hot you can move to a more comfortable place for a meeting, but we don’t have that luxury for our students. I’m asking you to commit here today that we will have a mandate for maximum temperatures for Ontario schools in the event of extreme heat.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

We certainly have been experiencing some warm days this late in the season, in September. I’m very happy that today we’ve had some natural relief; it’s much, much cooler today. I’m sure that our classrooms are experiencing that change in the weather.

I understand the concern that the member opposite is bringing forward. Our teachers, our students—of course, when the classrooms are warm, that is impacting their ability to learn in the classroom. That is exactly why we have provided school boards across Ontario with increased investment in renewal funding: $1.4 billion has been provided to school boards to address their priority concerns, including installing air conditioning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: The Premier has championed this government as a leader in climate change, and you acknowledge that it will trigger extremes.

Why isn’t the learning environment of our children a priority? I will ask you one more time: Will you commit here today that we will have a mandate for maximum temperatures for Ontario schools in the event of extreme heat?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Well, Mr. Speaker, I actually believe that our education system is a priority of this government, and you see that in our record. When the member opposite’s party was in power, our education system was actually in a state of chaos. Graduation rates were only 68%. As of last year, they are at 86.5%. Funding for education since 2003 has actually gone up by 66%. We are spending more today on a per pupil basis than we were before.

As it relates specifically to the learning environment, we have prioritized that. I mentioned in my earlier answer the $1.4 billion in investment. That is in addition to the $2.7 billion that we have provided to our school boards over the last two years so that we can improve the learning environment for all of our students.

Opioid abuse

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Health. Statistics recently released by Public Health Ontario showed that Waterloo region has experienced an increase in opioid fatalities. In 2015, 23 people died from overdoses. This number rose to 38 in 2016. Between January and July of this year, 35 people died of opioid overdoses.

It is clear that there is an increasing strain on public emergency services to respond to opioid-related incidents in Waterloo region and indeed across Ontario.

To address this crisis, Waterloo Regional Police Chief Bryan Larkin ordered $43,000 worth of naloxone doses. They’ve asked this government to provide emergency relief funding. Can the government commit today to funding naloxone kits for front-line workers in Waterloo region?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That gives me an opportunity to reiterate a portion of the member opposite’s question—that we are facing an unprecedented opioid crisis in this province.

That’s why this government has acted early and substantially with almost $300 million over the next two and a half years that will go specifically and entirely to addressing all of the opportunities to slow and stop this crisis. It includes the LHIN that the member resides in and represents, and the community within, the Waterloo Wellington LHIN, where earlier this year—we provided additional human resources and financial resources to every single public health unit around the province. It includes naloxone, which is available in more than 1,600 pharmacies in 200 communities across this province.

I’m happy to talk more about the investments that we’re making in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The police chiefs of Ontario wrote to this government almost nine months ago asking for emergency relief on this very issue. This summer, I had multiple conversations about the opioid crisis with Chief Larkin. In just two months this past summer, naloxone kits were administered six times and saved four lives. The other two times, naloxone was administered to officers who were exposed to fentanyl.

The well-being of officers is compromised when they come into contact with narcotics and require medical attention. Simply put, this is a matter of workplace health and safety for front-line workers. It is a public health crisis. It is time for this province to catch up to this crisis.

I will ask again: Can the government commit today to providing emergency funding for naloxone for front-line services, which is what they deserve?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I thank the member for her questions. Certainly, when I look at the great work that our police officers are doing every single day to support communities and to support us, I have to commend their great efforts.

I want to say that I do have regular conversations with Chief Larkin and all other police services, including our OPP officers, on the aspect of moving forward to ensure that they are safe in their practice, but also to ensure that they have the right resources to practise and continue the great work they do. I am very open.

We are moving on our strategy for a safer Ontario, and definitely, this is something we are considering.

Taxation

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Ontario’s vibrant arts and culture organizations are part of what makes this province such a great place to live. A building in my riding, 401 Richmond, is occupied by over 140 artists, culture creators, start-ups, galleries, festivals and shops. Many of the tenants in this building are non-profit charitable organizations.

On Tuesday, I was very happy to announce that 401 Richmond has had their property tax assessment reduced. This reduction is a result of a reassessment of the property valuation by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please share with this House the details about the reduction of the property tax reassessment for 401 Richmond?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I applaud the outstanding advocacy of the member from Trinity–Spadina on this very issue. I am proud and happy to talk about the resolution to the stakeholders of his riding. MPP Dong has worked tirelessly with the owners and tenants of 401 Richmond since February. I thank the member for his leadership.

I cannot underestimate the value that cultural and innovation hubs contribute to our economy, which is why I’m pleased that MPAC and the property owners were able to resolve the assessment appeals for this property through a negotiated settlement, which has reduced the 2016 current value assessment by more than 40%. There will also be a tax refund for the 2013 to 2016 tax years.

I’m proud to work alongside all our colleagues in this House and my caucus members who work so hard to support local arts and art community centres.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I’m pleased that MPAC was able to deliver a reduced assessment for this cultural hub, which is so important to me and the people in my riding.

While the reduction provides some time to address the concerns of the tenants, it does not address the future financial uncertainty that they are facing regarding the potential increase in their property taxes. That is why I’m encouraging the city of Toronto to explore a new property tax class for non-profit organizations.

I’m mindful that this will impact the bottom line of the city. That is why I’m happy to hear that the Ministry of Finance is taking a very responsible approach by asking the city to provide a definition of this new class.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can he provide details on the next steps of implementing this new property tax class?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Following MPP Dong’s engagement on this issue, we have been meeting with the city of Toronto to discuss the tools that the city can use to reduce property taxes for the owner and the tenants of 401 Richmond. These discussions have examined the range of existing tax tools that are at the city’s disposal, including tax rebates for charities and heritage properties, and tax exemptions for municipal capital facilities.

We’ve also explored the possibility of creating, as the member just mentioned, a new property class—property classes could be created through regulation under the Assessment Act.

First and foremost, we would need a formal request from the city of Toronto to create such a class. We’ve already seen support from local city councillor Joe Cressy, who has recognized our government’s co-operation. Once we receive this council resolution, the Ministry of Finance would work with the city to develop a framework that would encompass the eligibility criteria that it desires.

We will continue to support the city and other parties in this effort to ensure that properties like 401 Richmond can continue to operate as important incubators for arts and cultural communities.

Hydro dam

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Minister, I asked about the safety plan for the Bala Falls hydroelectric generating station on Monday, but your answer was not clear. I will ask again: Has your ministry received a safety plan from Swift River Energy?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you very much for the question. It’s a bit surprising, this question from the member opposite, who has really not been engaged in this process,

whereas my ministry has been for some years.

The Ontario government is committed to expanding clean and renewable sources of energy such as water and wind power. There have been many years with many consultations with the community and a lot of work that my ministry and the ministry of energy and climate change have put towards this particular project.

Public safety has been the number one issue in this area. At the moment, Swift River Energy has received approval for pre-construction work, including fencing, storing equipment and materials, and construction of cofferdams. Our ministry has posted signs and fences to ensure public safety. The ongoing safety concerns are heard, but the plans are in place. I’ll speak more to the details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Back to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Minister, I want to read from the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Administrative Guide published by your ministry. It states that one of the purposes of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act is the “protection of persons and of property by ensuring that dams are suitably located, constructed, operated and maintained....” This is the minister’s responsibility.

This power dam is being located in the middle of a popular recreation area with cottages and swimming areas in close proximity, both above and below the dam. The Lifesaving Society issued a report on the dangers of this project two years ago.

Speaker, what is the minister doing to ensure that the Bala Falls power dam will not pose a danger to swimmers and boaters?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, again, for the supplementary. At the moment, public safety measures, including fencing and warning signs, have been put in place around the Bala dam area. It is the responsibility of the proponent, Swift River Energy, to put a safety plan in place. Closer to the end of the project is the time when most of the details will be there.

The project has to be built in order to get some of those measurements in place. At the moment, the interim safety plan is in place. It is being enforced by the proponent, and those safety plans will be in front of my ministry, and others, to ensure that the safety of this site will continue.

I just want to reiterate: It’s the proponent’s responsibility. At the moment, the interim plan is keeping the public safe, which is my ministry’s number one issue.

Birth certificates

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Acting Premier.

Today, Joshua M. Ferguson will be filing a human rights application over the delay in issuing a non-binary birth certificate by this government. In May, I asked the government about Joshua’s application to amend the sex designation on their birth certificate. ServiceOntario’s birth certificate application should take no more than six weeks, but Joshua’s application has been “pending” for over four months.

Will the Liberal government stop dragging its feet and ensure equal rights for trans and non-binary folk, as promised five years ago with Toby’s Law?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to acknowledge the hard work and advocacy of the member from Parkdale–High Park on this very important issue.

Applause.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes, she deserves credit for this.

Speaker, our government is very proud to have taken a lead on this issue. We’re very pleased to see other jurisdictions, including the federal government, align with us. Our government, of course, values acceptance, respect and diversity, and ensuring that all Ontarians are treated ethically, equitably, fairly, including the trans and non-binary community.

Similar to the driver’s licence and health card policies we’ve already implemented, we’re developing that gender-neutral option for Ontario birth certificates. As I’ve said here in the House and outside of the House, we’ve been moving forward with stakeholder consultations, with a view to implementing a new, non-binary certificate in 2018. We’re working very diligently on this, engaging all parts of our government, including the federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Speaker, why should it take the government six years to amend a form? This is absolutely ludicrous.

Even the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services agreed, in a letter to Joshua, that they “understand and appreciate the negative consequences experienced by those who do not have identification that is congruent with their gender identity.” Yet you’ve taken no action. In the meantime, others like Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories have already started to issue birth certificates with non-binary designations.

Does this government—obviously, this government does—have to get sued in order for action on basic human rights?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I do want to assure this House that this government is taking action. We recently introduced a new policy to help trans and non-binary persons live according to their gender identity. Because birth certificates are the foundation for many other forms of identification, we need to make sure we get this right for the people of Ontario. We’re working very closely with the federal government on this, and with the other Canadian jurisdictions, to ensure that anything we do that affects a foundation document, such as a birth certificate, will not have negative impacts on the holders.

The federal government has indicated it will move forward to offer the removal of sex designation for passports. For the time being, the federal government said they are implementing interim measures.

Now Ontario will continue to work on developing a system for the issue of non-binary birth certificates. My commitment is unwavering to seeing this through for the new year.

Human trafficking

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is to the Minister of the Status of Women. The minister was recently asked a question in question period about the anti-human trafficking conferences that took place in Barrie. More than 200 law enforcement workers, social service workers and court service workers came together to break through the chain of human trafficking. In this meeting, our law enforcement partners discussed how they could effectively address the terrible reality of human trafficking. In collaboration with them, we are working hard to address and eliminate this terrible crime.

I would like to say that I am very proud of the law enforcement officers like the ones in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, where specialized and trained units use a whole-team approach to address and prioritize human trafficking cases. Human trafficking is a crime that violates every human right and continues to affect the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please update us on the conference that took place and what the government is doing to end human trafficking in Ontario?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for her hard work on this issue and for this important question.

Absolutely, Speaker, human trafficking is a heart-wrenching crime, and I want you to know we are working tirelessly to help survivors heal and to bring traffickers to justice. It’s conferences like the ones in Barrie and Kenora that have allowed us to move quickly to address human trafficking. I’m pleased that through our government’s Civil Remedies Grant, the OPP were able to hold conferences and find ways for law enforcement to address human trafficking.

Our government takes this issue seriously. That’s why we launched Ontario’s Strategy to End Human Trafficking and have invested close to $72 million, including funding for 47 community-based initiatives. We are also pleased that we’ve passed the Anti-Human Trafficking Act. We’ve consulted with more than 200 organizations as part of our Anti-Human Trafficking Community Supports Fund. Applicants will soon know about the funding available, and we’ve created a new Human Trafficking Lived Experience Roundtable.

There’s more work to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I want to thank the minister for her answer. As I said earlier, police services across the province are working hard at finding the most effective ways of fighting this heinous crime.

Last week, my riding of Kingston and the Islands was mentioned in this discussion, and I would suggest that there were some errors mentioned in the House regarding what officers in my riding are doing to end human trafficking. I’m proud to report that the Kingston Police take a collaborative, team approach to battle human trafficking, and that it does not fall on the shoulders of one unit or, say, a couple of members of its highly capable team. With a population of 116,000 in its city core, Kingstonians can rest assured that our police department will continue to take a team approach and that they will continue to keep human trafficking a high priority.

I would like to thank all those who are helping to fight human trafficking. Can the minister please speak to how our government is working with police services across this province to put an end to human—

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

Minister?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I want to say thank you to the member from Kingston and the Islands for the question. We know that a big part of putting an end to human trafficking is ensuring that police have the necessary tools and training. Through our policing grant programs, we help police services get the resources they need to stop this unacceptable crime.

Just a few months ago the London Police Service, alongside police services from Strathroy-Caradoc, Stratford and Woodstock, made 78 arrests and helped 18 survivors after a six-month investigation. Since April, the OPP have also laid 22 human trafficking charges and an additional 92 Criminal Code offences.

Starting this fall, the OPP will lead an Anti-Human Trafficking Investigations Coordination Team to aid municipal and First Nations police services in their investigation. We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to end—

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

Energy policies

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is to the Minister of Energy. Last week, my private member’s bill, the Transparency in Gas Pricing Act, passed second reading with tri-partisan support. It’s a straightforward piece of legislation that would allow natural gas customers to see the cost of cap-and-trade on their bill, giving Ontario ratepayers the same level of transparency already enjoyed by those in Quebec and British Columbia.

Support for this common-sense bill is widespread. The Auditor General’s survey of ratepayers revealed 89% thought it important to disclose the impact of cap-and-trade on natural gas bills.

Speaker, does the minister agree with 89% of natural gas users, and does he think people deserve to know exactly how much they’re paying for the Liberals’ cap-and-trade program?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to rise and provide comment to the question in relation to cap-and-trade on energy bills. The cost of that was a decision that was made by the Ontario Energy Board. That’s a quasi-judicial, independent organization from the government. They did their due diligence. They went through the process. They spoke with people; they did consultations around the province. They even allowed for written submissions to this subject matter. Then, after they made their decision, they realized that their decision was that this was a cost of doing business.

Like has been done in many other instances and in many other sectors, their decision was independent of this government, and they made the decision to put that as a part of the cost of doing business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the minister: When people get a bill they expect and deserve to see every tax they pay. Cap-and-trade cannot be credible or fair if its cost is hidden in the delivery charge. This Liberal government has spent millions of dollars advertising their hydro plan because they claim it’s critical that people understand their hydro bills. But they refuse to support this legislation, which wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime, to give natural gas users basic transparency.

Will the minister step up and give the people of Ontario the accountability they deserve and the transparency that they were promised by this Liberal government?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When we’re talking about transparency, it’s this government that brings it forward, Mr. Speaker. The only time we’re talking about—

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The only thing that’s hidden is that party’s plan on anything to do with energy. We keep waiting. We heard 200 days ago that there would be a plan on electricity. We keep hearing about plans that they would do something. Actually, that party does absolutely nothing when it comes to electricity except to complain about it. When it comes to cap-and-trade dollars, we’re making sure that we’re investing in this. We’ve shut down coal plants. It’s like taking seven million cars off of the road and saving $4 billion in our health care system.

We are proud of what we’ve done to ensure that we’re doing our part to address climate change and making life more affordable for Ontarians.

Conservation authorities

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is for the Deputy Premier. We just learned that the scandal-plagued Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority gutted its watershed management department in half, firing many key front-line staff. The NPCA is mandated to protect Niagara and parts of Hamilton’s environment for nearly a million residents. Instead, it has been very busy firing environmental specialists and suing private citizens who dare to speak up for accountability.

Despite receiving government funding and despite my community’s pleas for this government to do something, they continue to let the people of Niagara down by doing nothing. When will this government stop the waste of public tax dollars, ensure that accountability and transparency are brought to the NPCA, and restore our community’s trust in our conservation authority?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member for her question. As I’ve said before, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry has no authority to intervene in the operations of any given conservation authority. The member from Welland knows this; we’ve had several conversations regarding my authority as a minister. Each conservation authority is governed by a board of directors whose members are appointed by participating municipalities. These municipal representatives decide on the programs and policies of the authority, including policies related to staffing.

Oversight of day-to-day operations and human resource management is typically delegated to a general manager or chief administrative officer who is, again, chosen by municipal representatives.

I can assure the House that I’ve had multiple conversations with the member from St. Catharines, as well as Welland, on this issue and regarding their concerns.

Speaker, this issue highlights the importance of modernizing the Conservation Authorities Act. I was pleased to see support from both opposition members on this important act.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, we need to amend the bill that is going to committee to add the addition of appointing a supervisor.

This isn’t the first time that I’ve listed the issues plaguing this authority. This year alone, we’ve seen the NPCA fire many key staff, censure board members with dissenting viewpoints, lobby the government to allow developers to build on significantly protected wetlands, stall the Auditor General’s offer to audit the books, stall freedom-of-information requests, allow widespread workplace harassment—and the list goes on.

When will this government step in, one of its ministries, and hold the NPCA board accountable, ensure public dollars are well spent and that necessary transparency, integrity and accountability are brought back to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Through our proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, we’re aiming to strengthen oversight and accountability to ensure that decisions about Ontario’s natural resources are made in accordance with modern expectations for transparency.

Oversight of conservation authority operations is a responsibility of the board. However, there are situations where a ministry review is necessary, so we’re proposing to enhance the ministry’s authority in these situations by enabling the minister to require a conservation authority to disclose or publish information on programs, services or operations. This would help to shed light on perceived issues with conservation authority decisions.

This is just one example of the many proposed improvements we’re making to the Conservation Authorities Act. Yesterday, all three parties voted to support the changes, and I’m happy to see that the parties opposite take these seriously and hope to see their support for Bill 139. I understand they have no plan. We do, and I’m happy they’re supporting ours.

Hospital funding

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Clearly, the members of the opposition—in particular, the leader of the third party—haven’t fully embraced the extensive magnitude of investments we’re making in health care in the province of Ontario. I know that health care is a top priority for our government, but it’s astounding to hear questions about adding new beds in long-term care—to somehow be classified as a negative.

Investing in health infrastructure is an important part of ensuring Ontario patients have access to high-quality care that is needed today and well into the future. In my riding of Beaches–East York, we are most appreciative of the government’s new investments to the Michael Garron Hospital, our local hospital. Last year, the hospital received more than $2.8 million through Ontario’s Health Infrastructure Renewal Fund and over $3.8 million additional dollars in the budget.

Will the Minister of Health please update this House on the important investments that Ontario is making in hospitals?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. Of the additional $1 billion that we are investing in health care this fiscal year, half of that investment goes to hospitals—half a billion dollars—including for them to be able to address challenges that they face, but also, specifically, we’re making multi-year investments to reduce wait times as well. We committed, in this year’s budget, to $1.3 billion solely and explicitly in the government investment for hospitals, as well as in mental health facilities, to reduce wait times for key health services.

In addition, over the next three years we’ll be increasing the health budget by an additional $7 billion. That investment that we announced earlier this year represents a 3.1% increase just to the hospital sector. We will continue to make the investments that are required to ensure that that highest quality of care is being provided.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you to the minister for that response and the incredible work that he is doing to ensure that we have excellent health care in the province of Ontario, because it is reassuring to know that our government is committed to ensuring quality care across Ontario and particularly in my own area of Beaches–East York. I know that these investments will have a tremendous impact on the people of Ontario because it will reduce wait times, provide access to care and enhance the patient experience.

In Beaches–East York, Speaker, you might be aware, we have three RFPs now accepted going forward to be evaluated for a massive new infrastructure renewal project at Michael Garron, which is likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, to provide the excellent quality care that we need and deserve in Beaches–East York.

Would the minister provide further details on how these investments, operational and capital, will benefit the hospitals across Ontario and all the people of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In addition to the fact that over the last several years we’ve added more than 1,000 hospital beds to this province’s capacity, in this year’s budget we specifically targeted priority services: almost $200 million for cardiac services, critical care, organ and tissue donations and transplantations, rare diseases, bariatric services, and also supporting new and redeveloped hospitals.

We are contributing $91 million in targeted investments to reduce wait times for specific procedures: hip and knee replacements, stroke therapy, chemotherapy and MRI; $30 million in high-growth communities; $10 million in new funding for medium-sized hospitals; $15 million in new funding for small, northern and rural hospitals; $13 million of new funding for specialty mental health hospitals; and $12 million earmarked for pediatric hospitals, to support the continued provision of high-quality patient care.

Highway improvement

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. They call it Carnage Alley. The stretch of the 401 between London and Tilbury is one of the most dangerous roads in Ontario.

On August 29, a pickup truck crossed the centre median of the 401 near Dutton and smashed into a van head-on. The two people in the van, a mother and her five-year-old daughter, were killed. Sadly, there was another tragedy on July 31, where two people were killed and two more seriously injured in a collision involving a tractor-trailer and six cars. A median barrier would do a lot to prevent needless deaths and accidents like these.

In 2009, the Ministry of Transportation received environmental clearance to expand Carnage Alley to six lanes and to install a median barrier; however, the MTO claimed it wasn’t worthwhile to make Carnage Alley safer because of a lack of traffic on that stretch of the 401. The government’s position is appalling. We’re talking about one of the busiest highways and border crossings in the country.

Mini