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

May 16, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-16 (PDF)

L083 - Tue 16 May 2017 / Mar 16 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 May 2017 Mardi 16 mai 2017

Orders of the Day

2017 Ontario budget

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Bear control

Automobile insurance

Not-for-profit corporations

Child protection

Pharmacare

Child and youth services

Agri-food industry

Employment standards

Child care

Rondeau Provincial Park

Child protection

Correction of record

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

2017 Ontario budget

Visitor

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ Statements

Lyme disease

Vijay Bhatia

Bramalea Free Methodist Church

Toniata Happiness Project

St. Clair College

Schizophrenia

South Simcoe Police chiefs

Pearson airport reconstruction

Hydro rates

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Introduction of Bills

SKAS Auto Services Inc. Act, 2017

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Apraxia

Highway improvement

Dental care

Lyme disease

Mental health and addiction services

Elevator maintenance

Bruce Power

Politiques énergétiques

Nanjing Massacre

School closures

Hydro rates

Government services

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Time allocation

Safer School Zones Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la sécurité accrue des zones d’école

Adjournment Debate

Agri-food industry

Rondeau Provincial Park

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

2017 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 11, 2017, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa South.

It gives me great pleasure to have a few minutes now to speak about our budget motion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will know that in 2017 we have a balanced budget, the first balanced budget since the global recession. Not only are we balancing the budget this year, but we’re on track to do so again next year and the year after.

What’s so important is that a balanced budget means more funding for the programs and services people rely on most. Those that come to mind immediately are health care and education, but also this budget contains some very exciting news for the clients that my ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, serves. So I’m going to focus my remarks on some of those provisions in this budget.

For those with developmental disabilities, we’re making an investment of more than $670 million over four years. This will provide another 375 additional residential developmental services placements for individuals with urgent needs and for youth transitioning from the child welfare system.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you’re aware that sometimes families and caregivers find adults with developmental disabilities challenging in terms of their needs. Sometimes it’s complex medical needs; sometimes it’s behavioural issues. We, unfortunately, do see people sometimes accommodated inappropriately in hospital and in long-term-care facilities. So this investment will make a tremendous difference in terms of more appropriately housing those individuals.

We will be expanding our Passport Program yet again. We have some 24,000 people now on that particular program, and this funding will expand the supports available to those individuals.

We’re also doing some work in terms of specialized clinical responses for individuals with complex special needs, working very closely with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. We, on this side of the House, have an excellent team approach in terms of interministerial work. My ministry works closely with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services as well as the Ministry of Education to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities get the care they need. In many cases, it’s very individualized support that is needed, and we work together to ensure that we have a plan for individuals with developmental disabilities.

We’ve been able to increase asset limits, where families are able to contribute more in terms of their loved one’s care. In other words, we are not expecting them to deplete any assets before eligibility for the Ontario Disability Support Program comes into place. This was a result of extensive consultations we did with families, caregivers and individuals across the province. We heard loud and clear that families want to be part of the support of their loved ones with developmental disabilities.

We have received a number of endorsements for our approach in this budget. I’m going to quote from Bryan Keshen. He’s president and CEO of Reena. I’m sure many of us have come to know Bryan as a great advocate for those with developmental disabilities.

As Bryan says, “I am pleased to see an expanded investment in services through the Ministry of Community and Social Services for those in crisis and in transition to adult services. I am particularly thrilled to see the recognition and investment in interministerial efforts with expanded housing, support for caregivers, and health services targeted to the most vulnerable populations of which those with developmental disabilities are disproportionately represented.” This is the type of endorsement we are receiving from across the sector.

Of course, we have an increase to ODSP rates as well that will benefit those with developmental disabilities, because, in fact, of all the people on ODSP, some 20% have a developmental disability.

This is just a small part of our budget 2017-18—a very important part. I urge all members of this House, of course, to support this investment and these very vital services for vulnerable Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continuing with the debate: the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to speak to the budget motion. I was very happy last Friday to be at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario to make an announcement with regard to newborn screening—actually, a lot more things than just newborn screening. We described it as the baby budget.

The most important part of the budget for me is OHIP+ pharmacare for children and youth 24 and under. If you live in Renfrew-Nipissing, and you’re 24 years old or under, you will be able to go to your pharmacist after January 1—if we can pass this budget bill, which I’m sure we can get done before we rise this summer. You go to the pharmacy, you go with your script, you go with your OHIP card and you’ll leave with your prescription—no cost, no deductible, no copay.

I’ve heard from pharmacists and physicians and nurses about the challenge that some families have in paying for their prescriptions. We know that pharmaceuticals and medicines have evolved rapidly over the last 20 or 30 years. They have evolved rapidly since the beginning of medicare, and they’re a significant component of what people need to get well.

This measure in the budget is a game-changer, not only for what it will do for families in Ontario: families with children suffering with diabetes, families with children who are suffering from mental illness—I could go on and on.

The other important thing about this measure in the budget is, we need to have a national pharmacare plan. We need to have that conversation. We need to get to universal coverage.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: I know the members opposite agree, because I can hear them right over there. We need to have that national conversation, and I hope they can support us in that. It’s critical. It’s critical because medicines are essential to people getting well. We know that. We know that it’s a struggle, and we know that we have to do more to make sure people have access to medicines.

Speaker, I was also pleased to announce two new screens for newborn screening. As most of the members in this Legislature would know, since 2006, we expanded the screens for newborn babies. These are screens for a range of diseases, genetic diseases and a number of other medical conditions. We have expanded that now to 31. We added two new additional screens. We now screen more than any other province. I think we’re the jurisdiction that screens the most in North America as well.

We added a screening for congenital heart disease. About 400 to 500 babies each year are born with a congenital heart defect. That could be a really serious situation for a family to be in. The challenge is that sometimes they might not find out for a week, two weeks, maybe a few months or maybe longer, and that puts that child at risk. This test will now identify early those defects so that they can be properly treated. They’ll have a better chance at having a healthy outcome, a brighter future.

Actually, I was joined by the member from Ottawa Centre, the Attorney General, whose son, Rafi, was actually in the same unit that we visited on Friday. It was a very emotional time for him. I’m very proud of the fact that we have newborn screening, that it’s housed at CHEO, and of the work that Dr. Pranesh Chakraborty and his team do there on newborn screening. They screen every baby in Ontario—since 2006, 1.5 million babies. That’s incredible.

We also talked about a supplemental test for hearing, to augment the tests and the work that we already do. This test will, again, early identify children, babies who are at a potential for hearing loss, and be able to make sure that they get the assistance, the literacy they need, to make sure that they have a better chance at having a healthier outcome. I’m very proud of those two new tests and the fact that where that’s being done is in my riding of Ottawa South. I’m very proud of the work they do at newborn screening.

As well, we announced—as part of the baby budget—up to 90 new midwives to practise here in Ontario. Our oldest daughter, Kïrsten, had our latest addition to the family Fraser almost a year ago in a couple of weeks. I remember we got called to come over to the house. She had a midwife, Kelley Scott. We got called to come over to the house. We got there at about 10 o’clock in the morning. We took Vaughan, who is her oldest son, to the Teddy Bears’ Picnic at CHEO. This is about 10 o’clock. We stayed until about 1 o’clock, came back, put Vaughan down for his nap. I went for a nap too because I was exhausted. I was lying on the couch.

My daughter went in at 9 o’clock in the morning. She came in the door at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, woke me up and she was at the door. I thought, “My gosh, it was a false alarm.” Well, no. It wasn’t a false alarm, because she was bringing a Fraser into the house.

That’s an incredible thing, an incredible choice for families and mothers who are having children, to be able to have access to midwives, to be home the same day, to birth at home or to birth at the Ottawa birthing centre in my riding. That’s an incredible thing for a lot of moms. I’m very proud that we made that investment in the budget and look forward to seeing the further expansion of midwifery in Ontario.

We also announced pumps for preemies, which is breast pumps for women who have had premature babies. That will help those babies to thrive so they’ll have access to their mother’s breast milk. I’m very proud of that program as well. Also our support for the milk bank, which I think is just across the way over here on University Avenue. It’s been going for a number of years. I think they’ve gone through 4,000 litres that they’ve provided up until now.

One of the other investments was in BORN, which is the Better Outcomes Registry and Network. Every child that is born in Ontario is now followed by the Better Outcomes Registry and Network. That’s for a number of things. It’s closely aligned with newborn screening.

One of the investments that they made was to collect better data on pregnancy and infant loss. I know this is something that’s very dear to the heart of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I was proud of the fact that we made some investments in last year’s budget to address that. Many families are touched by this type of loss. We need to talk about it more. We need to have better data, better understanding, so that the health care providers can ensure that mothers and families who are experiencing these losses have access to the proper supports.

The investment in being able to collect that data—and, indeed, all the work that BORN does; I think there are over a million children right now—is really critical to better outcomes for children. It’s not exciting, necessarily—a new medicine or a new procedure—but it’s a very effective way of ensuring that we can deliver the kind of care that we need to, by understanding what the population needs are. And the only way that you can do that is to collect data. I’m very proud of that investment.

As well, hospital capital: We’re investing another $9 billion over 10 years, to $20 billion for hospital capital. This is really important. We all talk in debate here and in question period about the hospitals and health care facilities in our ridings, and those investments—for instance in Ottawa we’ve got Project Stitch at CHEO, which is an expansion of ambulatory care. We have a brand new heart institute, which should be finished some time later this year or early next year. Those things are critical to ensure that the people in our communities get the care that they need. I know that I’m very proud of that investment.

In particular there were a couple of things in the budget—and you wouldn’t necessarily see them, because they didn’t come on a big page with a big diagram—that for me were personally very satisfying to see there because of some of the work I’ve been fortunate enough to be allowed to do as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. That has to do with hospice and palliative care.

Let me say at the outset I’m very proud to work with all members in this Legislature who advocate for hospice and palliative care in their communities, all those who really go above and beyond to support that in their communities, beyond their role as legislators in this chamber and in their other work. I want to say thank you to all those members for their support and for the work they do for something that I think is really critical and important for the people we all serve.

When I had the opportunity to do some consultations around hospice and meet many people across the province—great people who are doing great work—one of the things that occurred to me is that hospice palliative care is a community-based initiative that government supports. That’s a critical piece of what makes it work. It’s a critical piece of its development. That community support also adds in things like affinity, volunteerism and an understanding of the need.

But we realize that not all communities are equal, and that we need to find a way to support hospice in the sense of capital. Hospice is right now a capital investment by a community, by a fundraising effort, often through multiple members inside the community, thousands of people coming together like they did for Roger’s House, Ruddy-Shenkman Hospice in Ottawa and Matthews House in Alliston. But we realize that not all communities are equal, so in the budget you’ll find—I don’t know what page it’s on; I was trying to find it—that there is going to be support for capital dollars for hospice.

I’m very proud of that work that’s been done by the ministry to find a way to make sure that we can help communities further leverage the support they have in their community and get their hospices up and done and running. Hopefully in the next number of weeks we’ll be able to announce that. I can’t give you details right now. I’m very proud of that piece, that it’s in there and the work that has been done by the folks who I’m privileged to work with inside the ministry.

The other piece is an investment around long-term care and palliative care. Long-term care is home. As we know, most people would like to die at home, and we need to treat long-term care as home. There is some real excellence in palliative care happening in long-term care across this province. I’ve been lucky to have met a number of people and toured a number of homes where they’re really doing an excellent job.

But we know we have to deliver that everywhere. Inside the budget, you’ll see it—again, it’s on a line; it’s on a page with a bunch of graphs. We are going to invest in ensuring that we can have quality palliative care across all of our long-term-care homes in Ontario. I think that that’s, again, a really critical piece.

Speaker, I’m very proud of the measures in this budget. You know, I did start this—well, some people might say I’m rambling, but I did start this discourse—

Hon. Chris Ballard: Never.

Mr. John Fraser: Never?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Never.

Mr. John Fraser: Okay—start this discourse talking about OHIP+, and I can’t emphasize it enough. I cannot emphasize it enough. It is a big step in the journey that’s going to bring us to universal pharmacare in this country. I truly believe that. That’s where we have to get to.

We need to have a national conversation. The federal government has to come to the table. They have to be at the table, because it’s critical that we’re all together to ensure that we can get the best cost for our pharmaceuticals, make sure that we have universal coverage, bring us all together around this thing that is really, as has been described, the second stage of medicare. I think Tommy Douglas described it as that.

That’s interesting because, as I said, medicines play a far more important role, I think, than they did 50 years ago in cures. That’s why I’m very proud of that measure in the budget.

I look forward to the continuation of debate, and I want to thank you for your time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure to provide a few comments on the minister’s and the member for Ottawa South’s presentation on the budget.

I’m particularly interested in the member for Ottawa South’s comments about hospice. We had a conversation, he and I, yesterday about a hospice in my riding up in North Grenville. It’s called the Beth Donovan Hospice. It has been operating for about 25 years. It started as a volunteer hospice associated with the Catholic church in the municipality of Merrickville-Wolford.

They now, as of this month, just opened their forever home. It was a home that had been donated to the hospice. It’s a rather large facility. I had the pleasure of touring that facility with the member for Ottawa South last summer, and I want to thank him for taking time to drive down to North Grenville and seeing the facility. I think he told me it took him about five or 10 minutes to zip down; maybe more.

That particular facility is sort of at a crossroads now. They’ve dealt with the Champlain LHIN for a number of years. There has been this undercurrent about governance that I hope is resolved between Hospice Care Ottawa and the management of the Beth Donovan Hospice.

When I was elected in March 2010, shortly after my election, Beth Donovan passed away. I can remember going to Smiths Falls for her wake and speaking to her family about the importance of her legacy and the importance of ensuring that residents of the municipalities of North Grenville and Merrickville-Wolford have that opportunity to have a hospice where they can die with dignity and where they know that there are volunteers and officials who can provide that good level of care.

I look forward to having more conversations with the member for Ottawa South about the Beth Donovan Hospice. Thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: I want to make a few comments, first to the Minister of Community and Social Services. She talked about the dollars that were going into the budget that will help people with developmental disabilities, and yet we still have 14,000 on a wait-list for residential services in this province. We have residential homes that are under providers that are being forced to send in balanced budgets even though they’re struggling to balance those budgets. We know that those balanced budgets will only come down to one thing, and that means cuts to the home, to the staffing levels, to whatever the needs are in that home.

You can’t force a balanced budget when you have an increased cost of hydro, when you have mandated pay equity, when you have all of these things being forced on top of you and then you’re being told that you have to hand in a balanced budget. It just doesn’t work.

Thank you for the extra dollars. They will help some families. But there is way too much in this system that will still fall behind.

I want to mention the member from Ottawa South. He talked about the strategies coming in for new babies. People with FASD—we know that there are dollars going into FASD, but the community is still unhappy. I’ve heard from them directly about the lack of an integrated strategy to go with those dollars. They feel that there isn’t enough in place to ensure that the needs are actually being met. I’m happy to share that letter with the member opposite.

Also, we’re hearing about young babies who are being born with opioid addictions and the lack of resources that are available for them.

That’s my time, Speaker. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: There is so much that has been said by the Minister of Community and Social Services and the member from Ottawa South. I just wanted to mention: She mentioned an organization that does so much amazing work in my community and across the province, and that’s the Reena Foundation. It takes care of so many young adults, adults who have developmental disabilities, and they work 24/7. I’m glad that this budget invests in organizations like the Reena Foundation.

I also want to comment on the member from Ottawa South, who talked about investing in newborn screening and adding two more to the 31 screens we already have. That is more than you can get in any other province. It doesn’t even exist in the United States.

By doing newborn screening, you can have our expert doctors start to take remedial actions to deal with the diagnosed genetic screens. I think he mentioned the new screening for hearing. I had friends who had a child that had a hearing impairment. They didn’t really find out that the child had a hearing impairment until the child was almost two years of age, because it’s sometimes a very complex thing, being a parent trying to—if they had had that early screening of that child, they could have taken action.

As you know, right now, one of the amazing scientific investments they make is in cochlear implants, where they can make an implant at a very early age in a child so the child almost functions normally from a hearing perspective.

These screening investments are, again, the best in North America. What this budget invests in is children, so that we won’t have to have children go through the trauma of these health issues for years to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise for debate today on this very important piece of legislation for the government. We were talking a lot about long-term care and, obviously, the health care of children, both of which are incredibly important to me, as well as palliative care.

When my colleague talked about Beth Donovan, my seatmate and I were thinking how hard it is when we see people who are so strong in our community and who are great friends pass on. I’ve had the pleasure of working with Bruyère continuing care. In fact, for my 40th birthday—because I, as a Conservative, believe that government does have a purpose, but I think that so we all do. We all have our own personal responsibility, and government can’t and shouldn’t do it all by itself. So for my 40th birthday, I actually had a fundraiser. We raised $40,000 for the hospice at Ruddy-Shenkman in Kanata, which is just a new hospice—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Sorry to interrupt, but pursuant to standing order 58(d), I am now required to put the question.

On April 27, 2017, Mr. Sousa moved, seconded by Ms. Wynne, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

On May 8, 2017, Mr. Fedeli moved that the motion moved by the Minister of Finance on April 27, 2017, “that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government,” be amended by deleting the words following “that this House” and adding thereto the following: “recognizes that Ontario has not balanced the budget and in fact contains a $5-billion operational deficit financed through one-time revenue sources and cash grabs, and $10 billion in new debt, and therefore the government has lost the confidence of this House.”

The first question to be decided is on Mr. Fedeli’s amendment to the motion. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Fedeli’s amendment to the motion carry? I believe I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Time allocation

Hon. Chris Ballard: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 132,

An Act to enact the Ontario Fair Hydro Plan Act, 2017 and to make amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 132:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 1 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2017; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 25, 2017; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, May 29, 2017, from 1 p.m. to midnight for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Monday, May 29, 2017, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto, with one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(

a) being permitted; and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, May 30, 2017; and

That, in the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, 30 minutes of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

That at the end of this time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Ballard has moved government motion number 30.

Back to Minister Ballard.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I believe that the parliamentary assistant to energy will be making further remarks later in the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Oh, my goodness, Speaker. You know, I find it—wow. That’s the way this government operates, Speaker, to move a closure motion and then for this government to not to even try to justify using this type of tactic just speaks volumes about this government.

For those who weren’t paying attention to the Minister of Housing, the government is trying to take Bill 132 and choke off debate. I’m going to get to that term of choking off debate in a few moments, but effectively what will happen with this government motion, after two hours of debate, is that we’ll vote on this motion, which will result in this bill receiving seven hours of committee time. It will meet on Wednesday, May 24, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and then again from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. to have public hearings, to actually solicit opinions from Ontarians about this government’s hydro policy.

People will only have—if they want to drive to Toronto or come to Toronto or teleconference—five minutes. Each party will get three minutes to question them, and then the government will bring the bill back to committee for clause-by-clause. They’ll deal with amendments in one day. They will then report the bill back to the House, and with very limited debate—this motion calls for 30 minutes of debate at third reading—the government will invoke this motion and pass the bill.

So you had a situation where this government spent a ton of money, Speaker, on advertising their hydro plan—actually, advertising it before they tabled the bill, which I contend is treating this House in an inferior manner.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’re treating the people of Ontario in an inferior manner.

Mr. Steve Clark: My colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is correct. They treat Ontarians in an inferior manner.

I tabled a point of privilege yesterday that I’m looking forward to Speaker Levac ruling on.

Time after time when it comes to the hydro file, this government doesn’t want to hear from Ontarians. It doesn’t want to hear from the people from my riding of Leeds–Grenville, who have really struggled over the last almost 15 years with this government’s energy policy.

Time after time, colleagues on this side of the House have taken the government to task on selling off Hydro One, on having poor customer service by utilities like Hydro One, and time after time, they’ve dismissed us. In fact, if you listen to the Minister of Energy, he’ll talk about how he believes they’ve fixed the system.

I know in my house in the east end of Brockville—I live in the city—the services are underground, and pretty well every month my power goes out. It went out a couple of weeks ago right in the middle of the Ottawa Senators game on a Saturday afternoon for five hours, and that seems to be the norm in my neighbourhood. The power will go off once a month, once every six weeks, for anywhere between three hours to five hours, and that’s an urban centre within my riding. That’s in a city that has invested millions of dollars in putting underground distribution through the city. It’s a sad statement on this government’s policy.

Time allocation, if you’ll read the motion, is given under our standing orders. Standing order 47(

a) reads: “The government House leader may move a motion with notice providing for the allocation of time to any proceeding on a government bill or substantive government motion.” This is something that all parties have used.

This morning I’d like to quote from one of our members, the member for St. Catharines, who will be celebrating his 40th anniversary as a member of provincial Parliament in a couple of weeks. I was in high school when he was elected to the Legislature back in 1977. There’s an interesting quote that applies to today that was given by Mr. Bradley on December 11, 2001. Let me read the entire quote:

“This is indeed an interesting bill, but what’s even more interesting right now is the time allocation motion that faces us. For the people who are watching this perhaps on their television sets at home, I should clarify that. That is the choking off of debate, the ending of debate or the government allocating how much time there shall be for the debate on a piece of legislation. We are operating in this Legislative Assembly at this time almost exclusively on what are called time allocation motions. That’s most unfortunate, because it’s what you would call anti-democratic.”

“Anti-democratic.” “Choking off of debate”—

Mr. Ted McMeekin: You did it 98% of the time.

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, you’ll have your chance, Minister, to provide your comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You had a chance. You stayed in your chair.

Mr. Steve Clark: Actually, you did have your chance and you didn’t want to speak, so you can listen to me for a few minutes.

Speaker, again, these are Mr. Bradley’s words, the dean of the Legislature: “choking off of debate.”

When you talk about a time allocation motion, this is the equivalent of their blocking button that they would use on Twitter or Facebook. They’re trying to block as many comments from Ontarians as possible. They don’t want to hear opposition members stand up and talk about how terribly bad this government has handled our electricity sector, on how bad they’ve done in terms of listening to the customer service complaints and the billing complaints and the metering complaints. We had to bring in the Ombudsman, for goodness’ sake, when André Marin was here.

We had to actually, as members of the Legislature, call the Ombudsman and refer constituent complaints because we couldn’t get any action by this government and couldn’t get any action by Hydro One. It’s unbelievable.

When the government provides some measures regarding hydro—they’re all in when it comes to advertisements, but they wait until last Thursday to even bother tabling the bill, and then when they do, they immediately move to choke off debate. They had debate yesterday and now we’re dealing with this block button today by this government.

Mr. Bradley goes on to say in his speech on December 11, 2001: “The best way to deal with legislation is to have the government sitting most of the year so that it can receive careful analysis and debate in this House and in committees and, in fact, in committees that travel across the province to get meaningful input. We do not have that.”

Speaker, Jim Bradley is right. We certainly don’t have that with this time allocation motion. To have one day of hearings for seven hours, then to have one day of clause-by-clause and then to come back for a half an hour of debate at third reading? A 30-minute debate? This is supposed to be the government’s flagship plan on hydro, and it’s only good enough for 30 minutes of debate?

We used to have meaningful debate in this Legislature where we were actually able to provide comments, work through committee, be able to amend a bill and be able to take what we heard. In fact, this government employed it last summer briefly, with Bill 201 at the time, for financing reform for donations. We actually went out at first reading. I think a bill like this would have been great if the government had had that type of debate instead of having their ad campaign. I think it would have been a measure that people would have welcomed.

Time after time, this government hits the block button when it comes to listening to people. I want to go back to a quote that Jim Bradley, the member for St. Catharines, made on November 24, 1993. His quote is this, Speaker:

“I’m concerned about the closure motions because I think they limit legitimate debate. I recognize that a government ultimately might have the opportunity to close down a debate that’s been going on a very long period of time. But as I’ve indicated to the House in days gone by, the purpose of these debates is to canvass public opinion, to make the public aware of what is happening.”

He goes on to say, “All of us have experienced the situation where we have encountered our constituents and they’ve said, ‘What is this particular bill all about?’ or ‘How did this bill get passed and I didn’t know anything about it?’ They are legitimate questions. One of the reasons is that the bills tend to get passed very rapidly in this House.”

Again, I agree with Jim Bradley from November 24, 1993.

I’m not going to read out another quote that he made in 2001. But at the end of the quote, he talks about the most powerful person in government, and he says that that’s the whip, the chief government whip. That was his quote: that the government whip can tell their members when to show up, when to vote. It’s just so ironic, Speaker, that the person that the member for St. Catharines railed about when he was in opposition was in the position he holds today. I can’t believe that in that short a period of time, he has turned around.

I think we had, and we continue to have, a great opportunity to provide comments, suggestions, questions, to canvass public opinion, to allow our constituents to provide good, meaningful, thoughtful comments on government legislation, but not when this government hits the block button and doesn’t want to hear those voices—when this government decides that it knows better than Ontarians. I think that type of attitude is really going to come home to roost for this government in about a year’s time.

I think that their strategy for their whip and their House leader and their House leader’s staff is the wrong strategy for Ontarians. I can’t emphasize enough that the opportunity to have meaningful debate without cutting off debate—without choking off debate, as the member for St. Catharines stated over and over again—is the way to go.

Speaker, we not only have a closure motion on the order paper for Bill 132, but we also have one, motion number 29, for Bill 87, which I’m sure the government will be calling in order. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did it later on today.

Again, it’s surprising how the voices of Ontarians don’t matter to this government anymore, that they could care less about when we sit. Any time we want to debate, any time we want to put those comments on the floor of this Legislature, we get accused of delaying.

Remember what I said earlier, Speaker. Remember what I said in this time allocation motion: 30 minutes for third reading debate, seven hours for public hearings, five minutes for a constituent to come—in my case, in my riding, to drive three hours to Toronto for five minutes. Come on, Speaker; that’s not meaningful debate. That’s not a government that wants to hear those voices. It’s a sham. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. It’s going to come back on you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West to speak once again, unfortunately, to a time allocation motion brought forward by this Liberal government. For those who don’t know what time allocation means, it means the government doesn’t want to hear from you. That’s what it means. It means the government is trying to rush through legislation. They’re trying to push through their own agenda. They don’t want to hear from the other elected representatives in this House. They don’t want to hear from the constituents we represent. They don’t even want to hear from their own constituents, they’re in such a rush to push something through.

Today they’ve moved time allocation on the Fair Hydro Act. I think it’s a little rich that we’re talking about a Fair Hydro Act, and yet they’re doing time allocation, which is anything but fair to the representatives in this House and to the people that we represent. It is anything but fair to the people of this province. In fact, Speaker, just to show how unfair it is, this government only tabled the bill Thursday afternoon—Thursday, May 11, in the afternoon.

For those at home who don’t know our schedule, the House rises at 6 o’clock on a Thursday. We don’t sit on Fridays. We don’t sit on Saturdays. We don’t sit on Sundays. The first opportunity to debate the Fair Hydro Act—and I’m having a hard time even saying “Fair Hydro Act,” because those of us on this side of the House know it is anything but fair when you’re talking about putting billions of dollars of interest and debt on the backs of the people of this province who helped pay for the electricity system in the first place, only to have the government sell it out from underneath them with no mandate to do so. So it’s really difficult to call it the Fair Hydro Act when it’s anything but.

The government tabled the bill Thursday afternoon—

Interjection: It’s a good name.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s a good name. They’re very good at coming up with great names for bills and not very good at putting any substance in them or giving the people of this province any say.

The bill was tabled on Thursday, May 11. We didn’t sit Friday. We didn’t sit Saturday. We didn’t sit Sunday. Yesterday, Monday, was the first day that anybody in this House had an opportunity to debate this bill. The people of this province haven’t had a chance to actually get into the details of the bill, digest what’s in it, and then come to any of the MPPs in this chamber, including the Liberal government side, and express any concerns they have, say if there’s anything in it they do like. I would think they’re probably not going to find much in there that they like, considering the government is saying they’re cutting bills by 25%, but we know that bills have gone up 300% since 2000.

We know that the people of this province, over 80%, don’t support the fact that the government is selling off our public asset. We know that the people of this province are smart enough to understand that in four years, if they had an opportunity to really look at the bill, which they’re not going to have at this point—they would figure out that in four years their bills are going to skyrocket again and they’re going to continue to climb. This government doesn’t want the people of this province to know that, and that’s shameful.

This government has had 14 years to do something about electricity prices. This government, when the rates went up, when things started to skyrocket, actually said, “There is no crisis in hydro. There’s nothing going on. People aren’t really struggling. We don’t need to do anything. In fact, we can just keep charging ahead with the privatization of Hydro One.”

They denied there was a problem. And now, under political pressure, because their polling numbers are tanking and there is an election looming, suddenly now—now—they’re pretending to listen to the people in this province, put through a bill called the Fair Hydro Act and claim it is actually going to help the people of this province when anybody who has an opportunity—and unfortunately, not many will, thanks to this time allocation—to look at the bill knows that after the next election, not far down the road, their bills are going to skyrocket again.

It is shameful that this government is giving such little time to the people of this province and those of us in this chamber to look at the bill, come forward with concerns and actually have fulsome debate.

If that isn’t bad enough, Speaker—to try and shut down conversation on this so that they can ram it through before we rise on June 1—they’re holding hearings here for one day, “here” being Toronto. The people in Windsor are going to have a difficult time getting here on the one day that this government is deciding to have hearings, which is May 24. That’s not a lot of time down the road; it’s just a little more than a week.

So for people across this province, whether you’re in the deep south like I am, or whether you’re up north, you have one week to sort out trying to get time off of work, trying to figure out how you’re going to get to Toronto, and trying to find out if you’re going to have time to even just phone it in. That’s it. This bill is anything but fair. This process is anything but fair.

Should you actually manage to find the time to be able to come up here, you have five minutes. That’s it: Five minutes to speak to the committee. That’s all the government wants to hear from you.

Hopefully, they don’t have members—I’ve been in committee several times where their members are sleeping through committee, so they’re clearly not even interested in hearing what those who come will say.

Speaker, it’s important to note that although it’s quoted as $25 billion in interest charges, it could be as high as $40 billion. The people of this province already paid for the electricity system. They have paid to upgrade the electricity system, and they’re going to pay upwards of $40 billion more because of Liberal mismanagement of the system. But the government doesn’t want anybody in this House or anybody in this province to be able to talk about that, which is exactly why they’re trying to shut down debate today. It’s shameful.

The government had the opportunity to do the right thing quite a while ago for the people of this province, to actually address their electricity rates. They didn’t take it. As I said before, they denied it was even happening. They denied that there was a crisis.

As those of us from the NDP caucus came forward, I personally collected bills from all across Windsor and Essex county. When I put that call out, people from across the province started sending me their bills, not just people in my area. I personally took them and put them on the desks of the Premier and the Minister of Energy. It was a large stack of bills. I’m still getting them; I’m still getting people sending me their bills.

They could have done something about it then. But instead of looking at those bills and listening to us on this side of the House talk about how our constituents were struggling, they disregarded it and they said, “There is no problem. That can’t be right. Those people can’t be right. There is no problem.”

What they’re doing today is trying to shut down our opportunity to say, “This plan that you have brought forward is not a good plan.” In fact, the people who are already struggling to pay their hydro bills are going to have even more of a struggle just four short years down the road. This is not helping them; it’s really not helping. When rates have gone up over 300% since the year 2000, 25% is nothing.

I should point out that they boast about taking the 8% HST off the bill. New Democrats opposed them even putting that tax on the bill in the first place. It should never have been on the bill in the first place. Only when their polling numbers started to drop and they’re facing an election did they decide to take that tax off the bill. And then they want to sound like they’re the heroes because they’ve given you 8% off your hydro bill. They should never have put that 8% on the bill in the first place; it should never have been done. We opposed it from the beginning. We’ve called for it to be removed.

I’m glad they finally listened, but it should never have been on there, and they certainly are not the heroes for finally deciding to take it off.

Speaker, we see far too often with the Liberal government that they want to time-allocate. They want to cut off debate. They don’t want to hear from the people of this province. They want to pretend that they want to hear from the people of this province, but they don’t really want to hear from the people in this province or the elected officials in this room, the people who are sent here to represent people across this province.

It’s unfortunate that this government would rather run their own agenda rather than do what it is that they are elected to do, which is to actually represent the best interests of the people of Ontario. Time allocation on a bill such as this, in the limited time that we’ve had to discuss it and the limited time that the people of this province have had to actually look at it, is nothing other than shameful.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Shock of shocks: I’m up here again talking about a time allocation motion. Speaker, it certainly puts me on the disadvantage, because I had no time to prepare, because I fully expected the members of the government side to want to speak to it.

This is the second rotation through, and not a member on the government side has risen to defend this motion. Are they that ashamed of their own actions and how they treat this House with a lack of respect? Do they not even want to stand in their place and speak to the motion that was brought forth this morning by the Minister of Housing? Is that what it has come down to, or is it just so much a matter of course for this government now that they hardly notice themselves? Has it become so much—no pun intended—the orders of the day for that party that they hardly bat an eyelash?

It’s just the normal course of business: “Bring forth a bill, a bill that affects every single solitary citizen in the province of Ontario, and we’ll cut off debate after one afternoon and one evening debate”—one afternoon and one evening, yesterday. The bill was tabled on Thursday. No one had had an opportunity to even see the bill before that. It was brought for debate the very next sessional day—Monday, yesterday—and ended debate yesterday evening. And today, we will not debate this piece of legislation again. Oh, pardon me; yes, we will. Oh, Speaker, how wrong of me.

The government, in all its kindness and consideration, has decided that there will be 30 minutes of debate allotted on third reading of Bill 132, a bill that they say changes the electricity situation for Ontarians for all time—as Muhammad Ali would have said, “For all time.”

Well, Speaker, they should be—not ashamed of themselves; more than ashamed of themselves. A piece of legislation of this gravity, of this significance, and this is how we are treated here in this Legislature? This is how the people of Ontario are treated by this government?

Perhaps we should be conditioned to it, and maybe we should take it with a grain of salt, because it seems that every time I turn around, every time I come into this chamber, I’m faced with my folks in the underpress, the folks who pretty much tell us what to do, saying, “Oh, Yak, can you speak to another time allocation motion?” I say, “What? Is that all we get to debate? Is that all I get to debate anymore in this chamber, a time allocation motion?” A time allocation motion in this House—one more time for the old Gipper, as they say.

Well, Speaker, it is just about time to put a time allocation motion on this government. But this will not be one that is imposed by this Legislature. It will not be imposed by the opposition. It will not be imposed by the third party. It won’t be imposed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. It will be imposed by the ultimate arbiter in this province, and that is the people.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That is the people who will pass judgment. Oh, and I know. I hear the minister. She’s getting ready to crow, because she likes to crow and heckle when we’re talking. She’s getting ready to make some noise, but the reality is that I won’t be passing judgment on this government. I’ll have a vote in my constituency the same as everybody else, but across this province, the people will get to choose whether you win again, and they’re going to look at some of the things that you have done. One of the things is going to be time allocation motions and how you have disrespected this House.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister says, “Oh, that’s a hot one.” No, it’s all about the attitude. I say to the minister, it’s not going to be about a specific motion, it’s going to be about an attitude of arrogance that has taken over this government. From one end of the benches to the other, that is what they live every day: an attitude of arrogance when it comes to how they’re treating this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no. Sorry. I addressed him as the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I addressed him as the minister. He’s actually a former minister, and now he feels he has the responsibility to heckle even more. But he’s talking about actions of previous governments. Well, I’m not here to defend the previous government. But I’ll tell you what I am here for: I am here to speak to the motion, and the rotation to speak came to your party, good sir, and you chose to sit on your hands.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Member from Ancaster, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You had a chance to speak to this motion when it came to your party, and you chose to sit on your hands. So if you can’t get up to defend it, you’re just going to have to listen to me.

Now, Speaker, on the one hand, they want to talk about the actions of the previous government. Well, I wasn’t even here. I wasn’t even here, but I have some quotes from members of this government when they were in opposition. Oh my, do we have it when it comes to what was said in previous Parliaments.

The member for St. Catharines, I think he’s—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, on June, is it 9 or 8—June 9, I believe it is, 1977. He’s going to be 40 years elected. He’s got a tremendous record in this Legislature: 40 years. I believe he’s going to be maybe the second-longest sitting member in this Legislature next to Harry Nixon, who sat longer.

He has been through the mill a few times. He has been in opposition, then government, then opposition, then government again. When he was in opposition, he had a completely different attitude toward time allocation motions.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I say to the member from Windsor West, I’ve never been in government, so I never had a different attitude toward time allocation motions.

“I regret that we are dealing once again with yet another time allocation motion, which is a motion that chokes off debate in the Legislative Assembly.” This is Mr. Bradley speaking. “It is my observation after a number of years, and I think talking to people who have observed this Parliament for a number of years, that it has been diminished so remarkably by this government that it has become almost irrelevant. That is most unfortunate, not simply for those of us who sit in the opposition or for the combatants who are of a partisan nature in this House, but for the democratic institution that indeed it has been in the past.

“It was once a significant institution, in my view. I remember, as a person before I was elected, coming and sitting in the public galleries. Those were the days where you didn’t have somebody blocking you at the door and making you get passes and so on. You simply had to sit in the public gallery and watch the debates that took place. And we did sit in those days; the House did sit both in the daytime and sometimes in the evening, particularly on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.

“If you listened to the debate in those days—I’ll say, admittedly, that there are always those who view the past as perhaps” much “better than the present, but I had a number of students who have gone through the Hansards and read some of the speeches and noted that indeed they were very good speeches in the House in those days. They were more lengthy than they are now, in many cases, so that ideas were able to be elaborated upon.”

Elaborated upon—elaborated. It’s very difficult to elaborate on a subject when the debate is choked off, as the member from St. Catharines said. When the debate in this Legislature is choked off, how can you elaborate? I would like to speak to the bill itself, Bill 132, this significant hydro bill.

By the way, Speaker, does the time allocation debate have anything to do with the fact that the Liberals got caught again by the leaked cabinet document? You heard the minister and the Premier yesterday, saying, “Oh, but that’s an old document.” They only came out in March with the plan to reduce hydro rates by a further 17%, spending your money and your children’s and grandchildren’s money to do it.

It only came out in March, and that leaked cabinet document was only prepared in response to that decision because it was designed to show the government what the consequences of that decision would be and how they would have to recoup that money down the road and to give them various options about how they would deal with that. If that is not a significant piece of information—and all of a sudden now, because the Liberals don’t like what was revealed in the document, “Oh, it’s an old document.” What is old? What is old in this House? If somebody has been here 40 years, they’ve been here a long time, like Mr.

Bradley. Forty years: That’s a long time, but is he old? I don’t know about that. But in the Liberals’ eyes, a document that is more than a few weeks old is now ancient and irrelevant.

To the people of Ontario, it’s not irrelevant. To the people of Ontario, it is telling them a story, a sorry story, about what the Liberals are going to do to them once they get re-elected—if they get re-elected. If they get a majority, it’s going to be the same old thing all over again.

Mark my words on this, Speaker: If the Liberals win the election in June 2018 and if they win a majority, all of those concerns—the 61% increase in hydro, the return of a debt retirement charge, the massive increases of people’s monthly bills—it’s not going to take four years or six years for that to happen; it will happen shortly after they’re re-elected, because—you know what they will do?

They will change the legislation to get back at the people sooner than was planned, just like when they promised there would never be a health tax and, when they got elected in 2003, they brought in the biggest tax in Canada’s history, ever—ever. They brought in the biggest tax increase in Canada’s history. So I say to the people: If you re-elect this government, watch out. Watch out for what happens to your hydro bills within very short order.

Today, we’re not even going to get to talk about that much longer because, when this time allocation motion is over, it is—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I’m going to run out of time. It’s going to be 10:15.

Speaker, I hope you understand—I don’t know if you’ve been listening closely, but I hope you understand: I am opposed to this motion and will be voting against it. I’m tired of the disrespect and the mistreatment of this House and the people of Ontario with the use of time allocation by this government. It has got to stop.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: It gives me great pleasure to invite and welcome members from OBIO here: Gail Garland, CEO; Michael Cloutier, Canadian partner, Mirador Global and OBIO board chair; Stefan Larson, CEO, Northern Biologics; Jim Graziadei, SVP, Siemens Healthineers Canada (former) and OBIO director; Cynthia Goh, academic director of the Banting and Best innovation centre and OBIO director; and Peter Dans, CFO, Synaptive Medical. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome today the parents and grandfather of my press secretary and my legislative assistant—she does double duty—Jasmine Irwin. Welcome Dr. Tim Lumsden, the grandpa; Leslie Lumsden, the mom; and Bart Irwin, the dad of Jasmine Irwin. Welcome.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome a special guest to Queen’s Park: 10-month-old Harley Zoratto, who is here with her mother, Krystina, who used to work in my office. I am pleased to welcome both of them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s my pleasure to welcome representatives from Hypertension Canada who are with us today to host a blood pressure screening and awareness event as part of their World Hypertension Day campaign. We have with us in the gallery the CEO of Hypertension Canada, Angelique Berg; Nadia Khan, who is their president and chair of their board; and Nancy Beshay, director of business development.

I’d like to thank them for being here today and encourage all members to drop by the reception in committee room 228 until 1:30 p.m., where you can have your blood pressure checked.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House Kathy Scanlon, executive director of One Care Home and Community Support Services, as well as Sue VanderBent, CEO of Home Care Ontario.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It is my pleasure to welcome the board and staff from MPAC, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. They are headquartered in the Pickering part of my riding. They’re here for their third annual lobby day and meeting with ministers and MPPs from all parties to discuss the 2016 assessment update.

We have the chair, Dan Mathieson; the vice-chair, David Setterington; and board members: Keith Hobbs, Ken Hughes, Bill Rayburn, Walter Sendzik, Mary Smith, Alf Chaiton, Lesley Gallinger, Bev Hodgson, Don Redmond and Roozbeh Farhadi.

We also have a number of staff members with us, including well-known Kent Emerson and my good friends and former colleagues from other lives in the private sector, Linda Hall and Don Leblond. We also have President Rose McLean.

They have a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. I look forward to seeing my colleagues there.

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to welcome Keith Hobbs, mayor of Thunder Bay, to Queen’s Park today in the east members’ gallery.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like to welcome a good friend of mine all the way from Leamington. That’s David Setterington, who is here with the MPAC board today, as well as the mayor of Thunder Bay, Keith Hobbs.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m pleased to welcome in the Legislature this morning the family of Pickering page captain Charlene Rocha. With us we have mother and father Nedenia and Cilbur Rocha, along with sister Leilani. Here from India is grandmother Bertha—just raise your hand—aunt Irene, from India as well, and cousin Joshua from India on this very special occasion.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome page captain Gurjaap Brar’s mother, Ninder Thind. She’s in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Il me fait plaisir d’accueillir Stéphane Giguère.

Mr. Giguère is the CEO of Ottawa Community Housing, providing innovative solutions to vulnerable people in Ottawa.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Alicia Eliot and her grade 10 and 11 students from Innisdale Secondary School in my riding of Barrie. Go, Invaders.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s always a pleasure to introduce Mayor Mary Smith of the municipality of Selwyn, in the county of Peterborough, in her role here today as a member of the board of governors of MPAC.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature a constituent and former Queen’s Park staffer, Chris Farley Ratcliffe, who is here for the MPAC reception today.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I also want to welcome and introduce members from the Ontario Bioscience Innovation Organization, known as OBIO: Gail Garland, president and CEO; Michael Cloutier, partner, Mirador; Jim Graziadei, healthcare executive; Cynthia Goh, director of the Impact Centre at University of Toronto; Peter Dans, CFO of Synaptive Medical; and Dr. Peter Pisters, CEO of University Health Network.

They will be having their health technology showcase reception from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. this evening in the legislative dining room. I invite every colleague to visit them this evening.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s always a great day at Queen’s Park when two good friends from Ottawa are visiting here in Toronto. I want to also acknowledge Stéphane Giguère, who is the president and CEO of Ottawa Community Housing, an extremely hard worker, making sure that we have affordable housing in our community in Ottawa; and also, Chris Farley Ratcliffe, who works with MPAC but, all around, is a great guy.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would like to welcome representatives from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario who are here with us today. I’d like to thank them for the important work they do and for joining us today at Queen’s Park. Specifically, I’d like to welcome Mary Alberti, chief executive officer; George Bilof, director, board of directors; Harbhajan Dhillon, director on the board; and Antonella Scali, their policy analyst. Thank you for being here today.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Good morning. I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today the parents of my legislative assistant, Sarah Qinami—Adriana and Ben—and her two brothers, Idi and Stevie. Good morning, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have with us five interns from Quebec as part of the Jean-Charles-Bonenfant internship program. Please welcome our interns from Quebec.

Bonjour.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, the Premier said the leaked Liberal cabinet document was “not the document on which our plan is built.” If this is the case, will the minister release the document that their plan was built on? The people deserve to know. Yes or no: Will they do that?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The plan was introduced in the assembly last Thursday. The Leader of the Opposition has already come out and said that he’s going to vote against making sure that families, farms and small businesses in this province are going to get a 25% reduction. He also said he’s going to vote against giving rural and northern families a 40% to 50% reduction.

When it comes to making sure that we’re acting in the short term, our fair hydro plan is going to bring that relief for families, for small businesses and for farms, once we can get this legislation passed.

It has been 76 days since they said that they would have some sort of idea on how to do something. They’ve actually done nothing since that time. We’ve brought forward a plan that’s going to work for every single family in this province. We look forward to getting this bill passed through the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: My question was about the document, the Liberal cabinet document, a graph that showed that hydro rates are going to skyrocket in Ontario. We got an answer that was completely irrelevant to the question, so I’m going to ask again.

We have the Premier saying that the document was out of date, that their new plan was built on something else. This is a recent Liberal cabinet document, saying that their plan is going to skyrocket hydro rates. So I would give the Minister of Energy another chance. If this was not recent, if this was not the plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to ask the other side to stop.

Please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: This document was not the one they built their plan on, unlike the Liberal cabinet document says. Will the minister release the graph that will show this is not the case? The people deserve to know. Yes or no: Will you release the document?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, come to order. The member from Etobicoke North, come to order.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The 2013 long-term energy plan outlines where our government, with consultation with stakeholders and energy experts, showed where we believed prices were going to go. But what we’ve done is we’ve pulled costs out of the system. The $3.5-billion renegotiation of the Samsung agreement, the cancellation of LRP II: Both took significant billions of dollars out of the system.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at where the 2013 long-term energy plan said we were going to be, we’ve actually reduced that number significantly. This plan that we have brought forward and are hoping to get passed through this House—we want to see that passed because we’re going to bring a 25%, on average, reduction on every single electricity bill for families, small businesses and farms. In 76 days, they’ve done nothing. It just shows: They have no plan for the—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Energy: The Minister of Energy quoted a 2013 long-term energy plan. I’m talking about a Liberal cabinet document for 2017. Let’s talk about what you’re talking about right now. And right now, the Liberal cabinet has a graph that shows hydro rates are going to skyrocket and skyrocket and go through the roof. I know that they’re doing damage control right now because a whistle-blower from this government exposed this government—that once again, every time they touch hydro, they make it worse.

A third time to the Minister of Energy: If the Liberal cabinet graph is wrong, if hydro rates are not going to skyrocket, will you at least be fair to the people of Ontario and provide us with the new graph, the new document that your plan is based on? Will we have that disclosure, yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Of course. Just like we did with the 2010 long-term energy plan and the 2013 long-term energy plan, we’ll be bringing forward the 2017 long-term energy plan. That will show where we were going to project where prices are going to be. And do you know where they’re going to be right now, Mr. Speaker? Some 25% lower than where they were last year, and that’s thanks to this government bringing forward a plan that’s going to make sure that we help every single family, farm and small business in this province.

Where’s their plan, Mr. Speaker? The last I heard is, they were joking that it was in policy development. Now we know that they’re going to conjure something up on that magic weekend in November. But what we’re doing is making sure that 40% to 50% is coming off for 800,000 families as we make sure that we’re helping those in rural and remote parts of our province, and 25% coming off for every family, and 500,000 small businesses and farms.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Based on the Liberal cabinet document leak that shows hydro rates are going to skyrocket, I want to ask a very direct question to the Minister of Energy. What will hydro rates be in Ontario in 2022? The document says that they’re going to skyrocket. Please correct the record. Tell us what hydro rates will be. What type of increase are we going to see in 2022?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, we’ve been talking about what we’re going to do in the short term, which is bring about a 25% reduction—

Interjections.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Oh, I know.

When it comes to the medium term—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: In the medium term, for the next four years, we’re holding our costs and rates of increase to the rate of inflation. Then in the long term, the 2017 long-term energy plan will actually dictate where prices are going to be projected. But by 2022, I’m hoping that we might even see something from them that relates to a plan, because I think it will take them that long, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: He had a very revealing remark there. He said, “We’re only focused on the short term.” Surprise, surprise, Mr. Speaker. What’s happening next year? It’s an election, and that’s what costs Ontarians every time. They come up with gimmicks, they come up with games to create a house of cards, and Ontario ends up paying more. Remember when we had the gas plants? Every time they’re concerned about elections and not the long-term costs for Ontario, Ontarians pay more.

Mr. Speaker, according to this Liberal cabinet document, by 2024, electricity prices will reach a record high in Ontario. My question to the Minister of Energy: This document says that we’ll reach a record high in 2024. Is that correct? In 2024—your document, this government’s document, says it will be a record high. Please tell us otherwise.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: That’s incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The 2017 long-term energy plan is still being worked on. We’re still making sure that we’re going to pull costs out of the system.

I know they have a hard time understanding anything about electricity because they don’t even have a plan. They first started talking about a five-point plan, then a three-point plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —and then a zero-point plan.

I know the people of Ontario can’t wait for a magic weekend in November. That’s why we’re bringing forward legislation that, if passed, will reduce rates by 25%. That will help families, small businesses and farms. We’ve got an OESP program enhancement. We’ve got a First Nations on-reserve reduction. These are things that are helping families. They’ve got nothing in their plan. They don’t even have—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: This Liberal cabinet document that shows hydro rates are going to skyrocket is so disappointing. I think many Ontarians hoped that when the Liberals said they’re finally going to address their own hydro mess, maybe we would have seen executive salaries reined in; maybe we would have seen the government say, “We were wrong to collect $1.3 million in donations from the 30 renewable mega-contracts. That was bad policy.” Maybe they would have apologized to Ontarians. Instead, right now, we’ve got an election gimmick.

As the Minister of Energy said himself, this is about the short term. I’m concerned about the long term. I’m concerned that our hydro rates are going to continue to skyrocket, and their own document says that. Actually, in 2022, it goes up. In 2024, it goes up. In your own document, in 2028, it’s going to jump 10%.

Families can’t afford this. When are we actually going to address the structural problems in hydro? When will this government actually clean up their own mess?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Structural changes are being done right now by our system operator with market renewal, market reform and a capacity option. We’re already two steps ahead of this party on many things. When it comes to the electricity file, we’ve even got a plan bringing forward serious reductions for all families.

You know what? A 25% reduction in the short term and in the medium term is something that families in this province want and need, and we’re delivering. A 40% to 50% reduction for families that live in the rural and northern parts of our province: That is something they need in the short term and in the medium term, and we’re delivering.

When it comes to the long term, the only thing that is going long term right now is that we’re 76 days without them putting one iota, one idea, on the table about what to do. We’ve got a long-term plan coming. The 2017 long-term energy plan will continue to address and pull costs out of the system.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier is trying to sell the public a bill of goods here. Leaked documents show that she knows that her hydro plan will end up causing hydro rates to soar, but, in the few months that she’s been bragging about this plan, she has never mentioned that fact, not once.

Why is the Premier trying to hide the real cost of her hydro plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You know, Speaker, we really want an Ontario where everybody has an even chance and where there’s a level playing field. We know that when you’re worried about your hydro bill, you’re not able to focus on those other things that will make your life better. That’s why we are reducing electricity prices by 25%. We have a plan. It’s an important plan. It will provide relief for people. We are still waiting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have had a plan—if you want to call it that—from the NDP, and I’m happy to see that they’re actually starting to execute that plan, because one piece of that plan was to get the federal government to pay for hydro prices. Now, we’re one step closer to having the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton elected leader, elected Prime Minister, and then—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m glad the deputy leader over there is prepared to vote for Jagmeet Singh for the leadership of the Canadian NDP. Who knew that she was a closet New Democrat? She certainly doesn’t act like one.

Look, we know that this document was leaked last week. It’s a document that this government continues to claim is a document that’s out of date. In fact, the Premier uses that language. The minister uses that language. But I have to say that sounds more like, “The gas plants will only cost $40 million,” or “I promise we won’t sell Hydro One,” or “Nobody tried to bribe anybody in the Sudbury by-election.” That’s how the Premier and her Liberal Party govern. They move from one scandal to the next.

Will this Premier stop the cycle of scandals and just come clean with the people of Ontario about the real cost of her borrowing scheme that the people cannot afford?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and talk about our fair hydro plan and, of course, the plan that is actually going to bring forward a 25% reduction to help all families, all small businesses—500,000 of those small businesses and farms—across the province. That’s why we’ve acted to make sure that we have this legislation get through this House, because, if it passes, we’re also going to help 800,000 families in rural and northern parts of our province.

I know the NDP and the PCs have already said that they’re going to vote against this. They’re going to vote against giving families relief now, relief in the mid-term and relief in the long term. Our plan is making sure that we build Ontario up, making sure that we create jobs and build the infrastructure we need and, at the same time, find ways of reducing rates for all people right across this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The bottom line is that the people of Ontario deserve the facts. The Premier needs to tell families and businesses what the real cost of this borrowing scheme will be. They deserve to know how much Premier Wynne intends to increase the hydro bills, and they deserve to know now. They deserve to know now, Speaker, before the next election. That’s when people need the information.

Will this Premier and this minister do the right thing and tell Ontario families and businesses, tell everyone who is sitting in this chamber right now, what the real cost of their plan is going to be?

Interjections.

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

The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will withdraw.

Mr. Paul Miller: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s talk about facts: A 25% reduction for all families and for 500,000 small businesses and farms in this province. Another fact: 800,000 families in rural or northern parts of our province will see a 40% to 50% reduction once we can get this legislation passed.

The Ontario Electricity Support Program—fact: Increased by an additional 50%, new line items, including more people to qualify for that. Fact: 192,000 families are currently on the OESP program.

Another fact is that we’ve reduced the delivery line for on-reserve First Nations. That’s an $85 savings for those families. It’s a fact that we’re making a difference in their lives.

Another fact is that both the NDP and the PCs have said they are voting against this. The other fact is, that’s going to hurt every family in this province.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Last week I was in Sault Ste. Marie, where I met Steve and Lucy Fronzi. Steve and Lucy are business owners. They have a number of Country Style doughnut and M&M meat shops. At each store, their monthly hydro bills are now topping $2,000; they spend over $10,000 a month just on their hydro bills.

They’ve done everything that they can to reduce costs. They’ve changed all the lighting and they did extra work on their freezers to make them more energy efficient, but nothing is bringing their bills down. How can the Premier implement a hydro plan that will end up costing this hard-working family even more in a couple of years’ time?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As we’ve said, the fair hydro plan applies to small businesses. Many of these small businesses that the leader of the third party has mentioned will qualify for the fair hydro plan and that 25% reduction.

These businesses and these family-run businesses will see that 25% reduction, if passed, and that is making sure that we are helping these small businesses keep more money in their pockets so they can continue to expand and grow, just like we’ve been seeing other businesses like OutSpoken do in Sault Ste. Marie.

We’re going to continue to find ways to help our small businesses in this province. When it comes to electricity concerns, we’ve even addressed those that don’t qualify for the 25% reduction. We’ve changed the ICI program once again. This will actually reduce the rate of qualification to ensure that thousands more businesses will qualify; again, saving businesses in this province thousands of dollars on their electricity bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Fronzis employ over 50 people in the Soo. They pride themselves on being able to offer good jobs to Soo residents, but with their exorbitant hydro bills they’re worried that they’re going to have to cut back on staff.

Why is this Premier, why is this Liberal government, forcing good, community-minded employers like Steve and Lucy to choose between providing jobs in Sault Ste. Marie and paying hydro bills?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, as I said, these types of businesses will qualify for the 25% reduction, so that’s good news for the 500,000 small businesses that actually qualify for this program.

We’re also working with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce to make sure that we can get all of the programs that are out to help many of these businesses lower their consumption. When they lower their consumption, they also lower their bills.

The ICI program that I know many of the businesses in the Soo are actually seeing will actually help them lower their bills by up to a third. For those that weren’t qualifying before for this program, we lowered the threshold from one megawatt to 500 kilowatts or 0.5 megawatts. That opens up this program for thousands of businesses right across the province.

We’re going to continue to work with the chamber of commerce. We’re going to continue to work with small businesses to make sure that they can continue to grow and make Ontario prosper.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Steve and Lucy are not alone. All over Ontario, businesses that were promised relief are now reeling from the truth that the Liberal hydro plan is a borrowing scheme that is designed to make Liberal friends rich at the expense of hard-working Ontario families.

Why is this Premier punishing—punishing—Ontario families and businesses with this wrong-headed hydro scheme?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The only two parties that are punishing Ontarians are the opposition parties, by voting against this bill.

How can they say that a 25% reduction today is punishing? It is actually helping families, small businesses and farms right across our province, not only this year, not only next year and not only the following year, but the year after that, and then the 2017 long-term energy plan will kick in. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? We’re going to continue to take costs out of the system that will see rates drop even more. We found ways to make sure that we can help Ontario families. We’re going to continue to do that.

They can talk about magic weekends in November and coming up with policy or ideas that are pie in the sky that don’t do anything and don’t even take a single cent—neither party has talked about how they can take a single cent off any bills. We’re taking 25%, Mr. Speaker, and we’re proud of that.

Bear control

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Late last Friday, Toronto police were forced to shoot and kill a bear that had wandered onto city streets. Police spokesman Mark Pugash said that they called the Ministry of Natural Resources, but “no one was able to come and help us.” They “were told that there were not any resources to assist them....”

Mr. Speaker, why was no one from natural resources able to help and trap the bear?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Public safety is the most important thing in cases like these. Local police made the decision based on the situation unfolding in front of them. My ministry was contacted that night by police and they provided some advice. They were unable to, for public safety reasons—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: It is not safe to attempt to tranquillize a bear at night. The Toronto police made the decision; they were the ones on the ground making the decision. They reached out to my ministry for advice. They provided the information.

I agree it’s an unfortunate situation, but these are wild animals. The police and my ministry have a duty to ensure that the public is protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Don Cherry had this to say: “I don’t blame police”—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Feel free to continue disrespecting the Chair.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, come to order—second time.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: “I don’t blame police because they didn’t have the equipment or backup ... It’s a dark day and we have to learn from this.”

But the government refuses to learn because these dark days aren’t all that rare in Ontario. On June 2, 2015, after a bear was shot in Newmarket, the former minister said that nuisance bears were not the responsibility of the MNR and the reason the police had to act was the MNR couldn’t work weekends.

This time, MNR said they couldn’t work at night. It sounds like the minister doesn’t seem to give her staff the resources at all.

Mr. Speaker, when will this government take responsibility? These bear deaths are a direct result of their cuts.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: We have a protocol that we follow in Ontario when working with local police in these situations. We would never second-guess law enforcement’s decision regarding public safety.

I want to give a shout-out to our officers across Ontario who protect the public, both police and the conservation officers of MNR.

We were on the phone that night to provide advice. Our ministry officials will go out in the daylight hours to tranquillize a bear. Let me reiterate: It is not safe to try and tranquillize a bear at night.

We would also like to take a moment to reiterate that if you see a bear that poses a threat to public safety, you need to call 911 and your local police. My ministry is always available for advice and support when need be, but I would never second-guess a police decision to make sure that public safety is the most important thing. They provided public safety that night.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Premier promised before the last election to lower auto insurance rates for Ontario drivers by 15%. After the election, she said it wasn’t actually a promise; it was a stretch goal.

We know the Premier’s hydro borrowing scheme is the same as her auto insurance promise: a political calculation designed to confuse Ontario voters into voting for her party in the next election. Will the government finally admit that this is the case?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. It’s usually something that the deputy leader of the third party would ask. I recognize that he’s not available now, but hopefully in time he’ll also be able to act and provide some assistance as we move forward, as we are with David Marshall’s report to ensure we curb the increasing costs within the system to enable us to reduce premiums. They have been reduced over time, around 8% to 9% now. We’re further doing more in order to achieve our goal, and that’s an ongoing situation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m sure the Minister of Finance, along with all members, knows that we do not make reference to someone’s attendance in this place.

Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Acting Premier: I hope this time they’ll listen to the question.

The Premier needs to figure out another way to get votes. She needs to understand that toying with people’s lives for political advantage is not acceptable, and it doesn’t work. Ontarians need real relief from skyrocketing hydro prices that the Premier has helped create.

When will she offer the people of Ontario a solution that benefits them, not the Liberal Party?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite knows that a report has been issued. David Marshall has come forward with a number of important recommendations—it’s up for public debate—part of which would reduce the costs to the system. I hope the member opposite will take it into account as he proceeds forward to initiate some of this, to reduce those costs and then to enable us to have further reductions in our premiums. It’s an ongoing thing that we’ve always said we would do, and we are doing it. There are about 20-odd companies that have now reduced their rates by more than 15%.

It’s a competitive industry and we’ll continue moving forward and working with the industry to achieve our goals.

Not-for-profit corporations

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, our government and the not-for-profit sector share the common goal of healthy and vibrant Ontario communities. In my riding of Davenport, a significant number of constituents rely on local not-for-profit organizations, like the South Asian Women’s Centre, that increase self-awareness of women and empower women to develop their social and cultural potential.

Minister, it is crucial to my constituents that they can access organizations that assist to develop their full potential by increasing their economic, social and political standing in society. Can the minister share what the government is doing to strengthen the not-for-profit sector so that Ontarians can continue to access the support they need to succeed?

Hon. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the dedicated member from Davenport for advocating for immigrant women and the not-for-profit sector in her community.

Ontario is home to more than 55,000 registered not-for-profits. Not only do they contribute to every aspect of our society, but they also positively impact our economy. The not-for-profit sector contributes close to $67 billion to Ontario’s economy.

Our ministry supports non-profits through our Partnership Grant Program. Since 2011, we have invested almost $18 million to help 67 organizations build program evaluation, inclusive leadership and volunteer management capacity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to thank the minister for her response. It is reassuring to see that our government is committed to strengthening ties with the not-for-profit sector, so that Ontarians can access the resources they need.

I’m sure the minister would agree that the work of local not-for-profit organizations is critical to the success of constituents. Minister, it is important that we continue to support the not-for-profit sector to build capacity by investing in projects that support intra-sector co-operation, communication and networks.

I understand that earlier this year the minister was joined by the member from Newmarket–Aurora at the Blue Hills Child and Family Centre to make a funding announcement. Can the minister tell us how our government is enhancing support for not-for-profit organizations, so that they can continue to assist Ontarians?

Hon. Laura Albanese: The member from Davenport recalls well. Earlier this year, I was joined by the member from Newmarket–Aurora to announce an investment of over $4 million over two years for 21 grants across the province to support and strengthen organizations, so that they can continue to serve the people of Ontario. This program is essential to building capacity within the not-for-profit sector. The projects being funded will reach over 2,800 organizations, which in turn will assist thousands of Ontarians.

The member from Davenport will be pleased to learn that the South Asian Women’s Centre in her riding will be receiving up to $129,000 to develop a diversity and inclusion leadership strategy and provide essential training to partner agencies.

Our ministry recognizes that non-profit organizations play a crucial role in maintaining the well-being of our society.

Child protection

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. On Saturday, May 6, 17-year-old Tammy Keeash failed to make curfew at her Thunder Bay group home. Tragically, her body was discovered in the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway. Between Saturday and Sunday, no one in her family or the North Caribou First Nation community or the Nishnawbe Aski Nation was notified that she had not returned home. Nobody was looking out for this young woman.

Sadly, in total, four indigenous youth living in group homes have died in the last six months. Why is the minister sitting idly by and letting this happen under his watch?

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question. We take these issues very seriously. I can tell you that yesterday the Minister of Children and Youth Services and I spent the afternoon at the native centre on Spadina Road from about 1 o’clock to 5 o’clock, where we discussed the issues specifically surrounding First Nation children and the issues they have in care, being taken into care and how they’re dealt with in care.

At that meeting, as I said, were the Minister of Children and Youth Services, myself and the leadership from First Nations communities across Ontario. They shared with us their very frank and very poignant stories. But more than their frank and poignant stories, they threw solutions out. They placed solutions on the table about how to deal with these. I’d be happy to deal with that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate that update, but we have to remember, June 28 marks the one-year anniversary since the Thunder Bay inquiry resulted in 145 recommendations on how to better support indigenous youth in care. One recommendation dealt with the development of policies dealing with missing students, specifically the timely filing of missing person reports. A year later, though, indigenous youth are still dying, and their families and communities have no safeguard.

Today we’ve seen more calls for action, so I ask the minister: Will you support the call from the Ontario children’s aid society and NAN leadership, and call a coroner’s inquest into these recent deaths?

Hon. David Zimmer: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member for the question, because this is a really important issue. Like the minister who is responsible for indigenous affairs and reconciliation said, yesterday, we had a very meaningful conversation with the leadership, with chiefs right across the province, here in Toronto. In addition to that, I’ve been to many different jurisdictions across this province and spoken to young people and to leaders and elders within communities.

We have a plan, moving forward, when it comes to group homes and children in care, a new blueprint that we will be bringing forward very shortly with some substantial changes. But the most important piece here is returning jurisdiction back to indigenous communities and making sure those communities can care for their children. That’s the direction we’re moving in.

Pharmacare

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, I participated in the Ontario round table organized by Diabetes Canada. Their number one issue was access to medication and supplies. Diabetes is an expensive disease to manage, and high out-of-pocket costs compromise people’s ability to access the medication they need.

Charlene is 60 years old. She buys her insulin in vials and mixes it herself before she injects with a needle in order to save money. She told us that the essential medicines she needs, including her insulin, are costing her $1,000 a month, and with no public drug coverage, that money comes straight out of her pocket.

Like millions of people in Ontario, 1.5 million diabetic patients need universal pharmacare that covers everyone, no matter how old you are. Why doesn’t the Premier do that?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Since we developed a provincial Ontario Diabetes Strategy roughly a decade ago, we’ve made important changes so that all Ontarians with diabetes will have access to the necessities they need. Out of the 1.5 million individuals the member opposite referenced, my sister, for almost 50 years—in fact, she was diagnosed in her teens as insulin-dependent, so this is an issue that I know extremely well—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Really?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —despite the heckling that I’m receiving from the leader of the third party.

That includes—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —my sister, who is that age and has had diabetes since 16—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —Mr. Speaker. We provide for children’s and adults’ insulin pumps. We provide for diabetic test strips. We provide, for those who are of limited means as well, on Ontario Works or ODSP, additional supports so that they can manage their diabetes effectively.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, with universal pharmacare, every Ontarian would have drug coverage, no matter how old they are. Universal pharmacare would save the lives of 830 diabetic patients each and every year in Ontario. Ontarians should never be forced to skip their medications, they should never have to go into credit card debt just to fill their prescriptions, and people like Charlene shouldn’t have to worry about whether she can afford the essential medication she needs to manage her diabetes.

Universal pharmacare is for everyone. It is the right thing to do. Why won’t the Liberal government do it?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I would implore the third party to stop describing their program as universal pharmacare because it’s anything but. What would that member say to the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the over 4,000 days that the leader of the third party has been in this Legislature, prior to a couple of weeks ago, she mentioned the word “pharmacare” three times. One reference was in reference to an op-ed—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You’ve been doing nothing for 14 years in government—14 years.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In those more than 4,000 days, one was in reference to an op-ed that I wrote on pharmacare, and the second was in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was likely an erroneous reference.

Mr. Speaker, our pharmacare begins—

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

New question.

Child and youth services

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, this past weekend marked Children and Youth in Care Day across Ontario. May 14 every year is a time for all of us to recognize these young people’s contributions to the province, as well as their strength, bravery and resilience. These young people have our government’s full support, and I know the minister has a long history of advocating for children and youth in this province to help position them for success and also to help them to thrive.

As my neighbour, the minister is quite familiar with my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt and has met with many children and youth to hear about their concerns on safety, access and child welfare issues.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please provide some insight on how the government is helping children and youth in care?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for this question, but I also want to thank her for her advocacy on this issue. In fact, it was her private member’s bill that established this day to be recognized here in Ontario. Thank you so much for all of the work you’ve done.

As the minister responsible for children and youth services here in the province of Ontario, it is an absolute privilege for me to get out across the province and meet young people. There are so many young people I’ve met who are in care with lived experiences who are working towards building a better Ontario for the next generation of young people who live in care.

We’re currently working on a very comprehensive piece of legislation, which members of the House know about, to reform the child welfare sector here in this province so every single young person has the opportunity in this province to reach their full potential.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Minister. I’m very pleased to see that with Bill 89, many young people have added their voice—before going through the legislative process of this House. We just finished the committee stage, and it’s now coming back to the House for third reading. Our government knows how important this legislation is, and we want to get this right.

I also know the minister has listened closely to the feedback from those who appeared before the standing committee, especially young people, sharing their experience both at the public hearings and throughout the consultation process. Our government’s amendments to the bill also reflect some of the feedback on the bill.

Minister, can you please share with the House how Bill 89, as amended, would impact youth in care, should the bill be passed?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member is correct that we had the opportunity to get out there and engage with a lot of young people, and they provided a tremendous amount of insight into the changes that they thought were necessary at the beginning stage through the consultation over the last few years to build the initial legislation, but also through the committee amendment process.

This bill is such an important piece of legislation. One of the pieces that I think is so important is that it raises the age of protection and will now protect 16- and 17-year-olds who may be vulnerable and need support.

In addition to that, it will improve oversight for service providers, including children’s aid societies, so that children and youth receive consistent, high-quality services right across this province. It will affirm the rights of children and require service providers to uphold them.

Most importantly, it upholds Katelynn’s Principle, clearly stating that every child has the right to be heard and respected.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: We have now seen 10 months of turmoil in Ontario’s processing vegetable market. It’s incumbent on the government to work through a process consistent with the needs of both growers and processors while supporting regulated marketing and supporting the growth of Ontario’s processing vegetable industry. The 2017 crop negotiations are wrapped up. There’s more work to do.

When will we see your government’s promised economic impact study—it has been 10 months now—and when will we see the establishment of the industry advisory committee?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for a very thoughtful question this morning. We, of course, had issued regulation 440, a process that we’re working through. We had a particular challenge this early spring with the tomato crop in the province of Ontario. We appointed one of the most distinguished people in the province of Ontario, a former agriculture minister, the honourable Elmer Buchanan, who served so well in this House from 1990 to 1995, to act as a trustee. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a court case that is potentially pending. Because that court case is potentially pending, I can’t comment any further.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

However, planting, irrigating—harvest is looming, with the attendant need for oversight of grading, filling contracts and adjusting contracts, ever mindful of the vagaries of weather and other externalities. Minister, growers need their elected and trusted organization back to ensure orderly marketing. They need the representation with directors, committees, support staff. When will we see the election of directors and when will we see the appointment of staff to make the required decisions during harvest?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for his supplementary question. We were faced with a situation where we wanted to make sure that we protected a crop in 2017. We wanted to protect family farms and we wanted to protect the processing industry, which is so important to agriculture in the province of Ontario. We appointed, as I said, one of the most distinguished people in agriculture in the province of Ontario today, the honourable Elmer Buchanan. He acted as a trustee.

He was able to negotiate contracts to make sure that we got those crops planted in the ground and potentially harvested, for a robust sector of that part of Ontario’s agriculture. I take the member’s representation this morning, but there is a pending court case and I can’t comment any further.

Employment standards

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. One out of every 10 workers in the province of Ontario makes minimum wage, which has not kept pace with the rising cost of almost everything. Some 70% of Ontarians want to see a $15 minimum wage. Yet there was nothing in the budget, and the minister has made it clear there’s nothing in the Changing Workplaces Review report. New Democrats listened, Speaker. That’s why we have committed to increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour for over a year now. Will the Acting Premier commit today to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for the workers in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for this question. There obviously is discussion right throughout the North American continent on minimum wages these days. What we’ve done as the government—we want to make sure that every family in this province is able to benefit from the economy of this province. The economy is robust. We’re leading in economic growth amongst the G7. Ontario is doing well.

We need to ensure that every sector and every person, from high-income earners to low-income earners, are earning their share in that economy. That’s why we implemented the Changing Workplaces Review: to make sure that we took a look at all the labour relations aspects, all the employment standards, that have been raised by organized labour, by business and by poverty advocates throughout the province of Ontario.

I hope to come back to the House after the report is released, once the public has seen the report and is able to digest it, with some changes that I think really meet the needs of those hard-working Ontarians who rely on a sense of decency in Ontario’s workplaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: For over a year now, New Democrats have been committed to the $15 minimum wage. Again, last week, we asked this Liberal government: Will you commit to this wage? We asked again on April 25 and we asked again on March 8 and we asked again on February 23. Any time this Liberal government has been asked if they’ll raise the minimum wage, the minister’s answer has been the same: “Ontarians want predictable.” No, they don’t, Speaker; they want change. Hard-working Ontarians deserve a $15 minimum wage. Will this be another stretch goal, or will this government commit today to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I want to thank the member again for that question. Obviously, as I said at the start of the previous answer, Speaker, this is a topic that is being discussed all over North America. When you look to our neighbours to the south, you’re seeing changes implemented on a city basis, on a state basis. When you look to our own country, you’re seeing changes that are being made on a provincial basis. It’s about protecting people’s wages. It’s about protecting their ability to earn a good living.

Speaker, we’ve gone through a review that has looked at employment standards. We have looked at labour relations in the province of Ontario, to make sure that we fully understand the ramifications of what we do.

What the Premier asked me to do in the mandate letter was to take a look at workplaces today and make sure that the legislation is up to date, and do it in a way that Ontario business can remain competitive.

The NDP has referred to this as a waste of time. I could not agree more. It’s very important.

Child care

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the minister responsible for early years and child care. Minister, I am proud that our government is committed to ensuring that families have access to quality and affordable child care all across the province.

But I hear over and over again from my constituents about the struggle to find child care for their children. There is an acute shortage, and while we have addressed the issue of non-refundable wait-list fees that I raised in a private member’s bill, more supply of affordable spaces is required. As the MPP for Beaches–East York, I want to ensure that we are providing child care options for all of the families in need across the province.

Speaker, will the minister responsible for early years and child care please tell us all what the government is doing to make sure families’ needs are going to be met?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Status of Women and responsible for early years and child care—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask that those kinds of things not be said, please.

I need a response.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the hard-working member from Beaches–East York for this important question.

It’s vital for families to have access to quality, affordable child care, and we know that this can be a challenge for families. That’s why I’m proud that our government has a plan to modernize the way we are delivering child care.

The 2017 budget reaffirmed our government’s commitment to help 100,000 more children access affordable, quality, licensed child care, and we’re starting immediately, with an investment of $200 million for the 2017-18 year. This funding supports the creation of 24,000 more spaces for children. It will provide immediate relief for families, reduce wait-lists, encourage reduced fees and increase subsidies. This investment will be felt by thousands of parents searching for affordable, accessible child care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you to the minister for her excellent work in trying to provide more daycare spaces for constituents right across the province. It’s encouraging to know that our government is working to address the needs of Ontario families. I know that I’m working very hard with local daycare providers like Debbie Visconti, the executive director of Community Centre 55, to identify new locations in Beaches–East York for affordable daycare. I know that families in my riding are excited to see that new, non-profit daycare spaces are being created.

I recognize that there is a lot more work to be done, but people who are involved in the child care and early years sector are keen to see how the system will be modernized. We’ve heard about the 100,000 new spaces being created, and our government’s swift action will help provide families with access to child care that they need right now.

Speaker, will the minister please explain to us and tell us more about the way in which our government plans to transform child care in the long term?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to answer the member’s question. My ministry and I have been working hard to support the needs of families when it comes to early years and child care in Ontario.

We know that providing spaces is not enough, which is why we are developing a renewed early years and child care framework to help transform the entire system. Speaker, we want to help families get the support they need, whether they choose to stay at home with a young one or use child care. This framework will include an affordability strategy to create long-term solutions.

As you know, we held consultations in 20 different Ontario communities and heard from close to 8,000 people. The needs of families in this province are diverse, and I’m pleased to say that we will be sharing the details of our framework in the coming weeks. The 2017 budget commitment is just the start.

Rondeau Provincial Park

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. It has been over five years and four MNRF ministers since I first asked about the future of Rondeau cottages. Now, there’s less than a week to go before the Rondeau cottagers return to see what repairs are needed after the winter. Their leases are set to expire in less than eight months. If no decision is reached, your Liberal government, Minister, will force them to tear down their cottages at their own expense after December 2017. These cottagers need to know answers now. Cottages are in need of repair.

Minister, you’ve delayed on this decision for far too long. Speaker, to the minister: Will the minister commit today to extending the leases for the cottagers?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As he knows, the 20-year lease was set to expire December 31, 2017, and our government has been taking steps to allow existing private cottage lots in Rondeau Provincial Park to continue until December 31, 2038. But a final decision will be informed by consultation, environmental and economic studies and an environmental assessment. That’s where it rests right now: with the Ministry of the Environment, which is doing an environmental assessment.

It’s an approach that’s intended to balance the interests of public cottagers and demonstrate fiscal responsibility while protecting the environment in Rondeau Provincial Park. We will continue to work with the cottagers. We understand time is of the essence, but, at the moment, the file rests with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Wow. How many more environmental assessments have to be done? Years ago, I was told that the ministry was waiting for the last environmental and economic study to be finished before they could make a decision. And I don’t think that it’s fair to compare Rondeau to Algonquin; Rondeau has a sound and solid community who are excellent stewards of the land.

The studies are done, but still no answers. After many years, the deadline is fast approaching and the government seems no closer to making up its mind. These cottages have been in families for decades, so with the lease deadline fast approaching, these cottagers need answers now.

To the minister: Why are the Rondeau cottagers still waiting for an answer from this government? Precedence has been established for a 99-year lease. You might know that, too.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: This is a very complex topic. There are many different stakeholders; some are for keeping cottagers in the park, yet there are other organizations and other stakeholders that are against keeping cottagers in the park.

My ministry has been working alongside the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to be able to see some of the conditions that will be required if the cottagers have an extension past December 31, 2017. We have requested an independent third-party peer review of the environmental reports that have been prepared by the ministry to ensure the findings are accurate and balanced.

The reports were revised to address comments received, and the conclusions of the report don’t change. The environmental reports indicate that cottage lot structures and activities contribute to pressure