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

November 5, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Nov-05 (PDF)

L025 - Wed 5 Nov 2014 / Mer 5 nov 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 November 2014 Mercredi 5 novembre 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de sauvegarde de l’intégrité des soins de santé

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s privilege

Oral Questions

Public sector accountability

Air ambulance service

Public services

Government contracts

Sexual harassment

Government’s agenda

Ontario economy

Forest industry

Pan Am Games

Sexual harassment / Harcèlement sexuel

Services for the developmentally disabled

Forest industry

Government services

GO Transit

Correctional facilities

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario

Sudbury Multicultural and Folk Arts Association

Sikh Remembrance Day Ceremony

Ontario Legislature Internship Programme

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario

Grand River Brewing

Phragmites

Myeloma Canada

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Invasive Species Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur les espèces envahissantes

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

Take Our Kids to Work Day

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

Take Our Kids to Work Day

Take Our Kids to Work Day

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

Petitions

Hospice funding

First responders

Legal aid

Lyme disease

Employment standards

Legal aid

Wind turbines

Workplace safety

Privatization of public assets

Seniors’ health services

Correctional facilities

Orders of the Day

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’amélioration du lieu de travail au service d’une économie plus forte

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2014, on the amendment to the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to enact the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, to repeal the Day Nurseries Act, to amend the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the Education Act and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 10, Loi édictant la Loi de 2014 sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance, abrogeant la

Loi sur les garderies, modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les éducatrices et les éducateurs de la petite enfance, la

Loi sur l’éducation et la

Loi sur le ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités et apportant des modifications corrélatives et connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my pleasure to join this debate today, not on Bill 10 but on a closure motion to stop this assembly from debating an issue that will affect 140,000 child care spaces, affect parents across this province and affect children throughout Ontario.

This bill needs to be debated, and it needs to travel across Ontario. So, Speaker, I am standing here before you today, not only to say I oppose stopping this bill from being debated at second reading on the floor of this assembly, but also to suggest to my colleagues that the best way to proceed with Bill 10, the best way to talk about child care in the province of Ontario and the best way to talk about the safety of our children, is to ensure that we travel this bill.

Mothers and fathers like me don’t have the opportunity to come to speak on the floor of the assembly every day, Speaker. They are working. They are spending time in their community, whether that is in Barrie, in Oakville, in Kingston or in Sudbury. They do not have the opportunity to come to the floor of the assembly. So, on their behalf, as a fellow mother, as someone who also has her child in daycare with a person who is important to my family, I want to speak on their behalf.

I have, for some time, been very critical of this Liberal government’s plan to abolish 140,000 child care spaces in the province. I understand that the NDP has put forward an amendment in order to allow this bill to travel. For that, Speaker, I’d like to read into the record a petition that 2,000 people signed in less than one week as a result of this Liberal Bill 10. It says:

“Whereas the Liberal government introduced Bill 10—Child Care Modernization Act on July 10, 2014;

“Whereas the passage of the bill will result in the elimination of 140,000 child care spaces in Ontario and increase child care costs by 30-40%, especially in rural and suburban areas;

“Whereas Bill 10 could force licensed daycare providers to close, impacting religious day schools, private schools and Montessori schools as well;

“Whereas the Liberal government has asked for quick passage of the bill but has not properly considered these repercussions for all Ontario parents;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Liberal government conduct province-wide consultation during the 2014-2015 legislative winter recess at which time the Minister of Education” and the committee on social policy “will travel across the province to Hamilton, Guelph, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Windsor, Sudbury and Toronto to consult with parents and child care workers to understand how the bill will negatively affect Ontario children, parents and child care workers.”

So I speak on behalf of thousands of parents across this province, their children and, of course, those independent child care operators, licensed and unlicensed, who are afraid that this bill will negatively impact our children. Therefore, with respect to the amendment that I am now debating, put forward by the third party, I move that the amendment to the motion be amended by deleting the number “5” and replacing it with the number “7,” and deleting “as determined by the committee” and replacing it with “in the following locations: Hamilton, Guelph, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Windsor and Sudbury.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton moves that the amendment to the motion be amended by deleting the number “5” and replacing it with the number “7,” and deleting “as determined by the committee” and replacing it with “in the following locations: Hamilton, Guelph, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Windsor and Sudbury.”

I refer back to the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I believe the subamendment needs to be very specific, and I’ll tell you why—I alluded to this in the very early points of my initial speech to this assembly. I know that other moms and dads in their 30s and 40s are out today working. They’re trying to make a living in order for them to pay for their child care. These parents have made a conscious decision, a responsible decision to place their children in care. They are not able to come to Queen’s Park and speak for 10 minutes to a committee at this building here in Toronto.

If we are truly engaged with the public, if we are truly committed to engaging our citizenry, we don’t always have to do it in a committee room at this assembly. We should travel this bill; we should travel to talk to those who are affected most by this legislation.

When I first spoke about Bill 10, I talked about the fact that there are two things this government is opposed to: the first is parental choice, and the second is parental responsibility. These are both affected by this legislation, these are both affected by this government, and they should both be heard by a committee of this assembly in each of those communities, whether that is in Hamilton, in Guelph, in my city of Ottawa, in Kitchener, in London, in Windsor or in Sudbury.

The independent child care operators, whether they are licenced or not, should also have an opportunity to speak to this legislation. But as you are aware, Speaker, many of them across this great, vast province, the largest province geographically in Canada, the largest province population-wise in Canada—it is impossible, if you’re going to affect 140,000 child care spaces, to bring everyone here who will be affected. The best way to get a proper hearing is to travel this bill to Mr. Speaker’s Hamilton, to my Ottawa, to Windsor, to Kitchener, to London, to Sudbury—to places where this bill will affect people.

That is why we put forward the amendment, and that is why I put forward that petition, which over 2,000 people in one week signed.

Let me read you a letter from a mother in Brampton:

“I am asking you as a mother, ICP, and voter to travel Bill 10. It is not perfect—yet—but there is hope for a suitable and obtainable goal to be able to be met with the bill. Do accomplish this; the proposed Bill 10 must be travelled. Passing with 35 of the recommendations met is not good enough for Ontario.…

“Yours in caring,

“Gerri Ellery

“Gerri’s Home Daycare,” a registered home business in Brampton.

Let me speak to you now from Sophie Renaud, a very upset Sudbury citizen. In a letter to Minister Sandals, she said:

“I’m writing to you as a parent that has her child in a home daycare. I urged you not to pass Bill 10. If my current daycare has no choice but to switch to a licensed daycare, she will have to charge their rates as well. That means I can’t afford to put her in daycare and I’m forced to quit my job to take care of my child.”

I think Sophie Renaud speaks for thousands of mothers across Ontario who will be negatively impacted by this legislation. I believe that the member from Sudbury and this government owe it to Sophie to go to Sudbury to hear from her and to hear from those who are affected by this bill, just like her.

I want to talk about Emily Allison. She’s from Bowmanville. Up until recently, she had a very strong advocate for her standing on this side of the House in John O’Toole. Having known John O’Toole and served with him, I know that Mr. O’Toole would be defending her today. Emily Allison writes this:

“I am an independent child care provider in Durham region, and the Durham region spokesperson for CICPO (Coalition of Independent Childcare Providers of Ontario).

“Bill 10 proposes to include my four-year-old son in my ratio even though he is in school for seven of my nine open hours. This means that I will have to let go of a family who has been in my care for 2.5 years in order to remain a family legal independent daycare.”

She says, at the very end—and I say this to the member from Durham: “I ask that you travel this bill during the winter break so that you can truly understand the ramifications on Ontario’s families, children and providers.”

These are messages for members in Liberal ridings. They are constituents who feel that if this bill does not travel across the province to speak to those who are impacted most—that is, mothers and fathers who are working during the day and child care operators who are caring for their children during the day—then this bill will not be worth the paper it is written on, because it will have been done without the consent of the people who sent them to Queen’s Park.

I have another letter here from Joanne Hoole. Joanne is from Oakville, another Liberal riding. She says: “My name is Joanne Hoole, and I am a home daycare provider in Oakville for 25 years. I’ve been married for 26 years and have two children, a daughter who is 21 and a son who is 18.

“I have a current police check as does my husband, my daughter and my son. I also have my CPR, which I renew every year.”

Speaker, listen to this line: “I have had the privilege of helping parents raise over 50 children, and still have contact with most” of them.

This woman, Joanne Hoole, feels a great deal of pride in the job she has done for over 25 years. The families she has been in contact with over that period of time are still her family. She has helped raise 50 children, above and beyond the children that she has birthed herself.

If the member from Oakville and the member from Durham and the member from Sudbury and the members from Brampton and the members from Guelph and the members from Ottawa, with the exception of me, won’t stand up for their constituents, I want to assure them I will, and the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus will, and our education critic, Garfield Dunlop, will stand up for you.

That is why we are calling for province-wide hearings in the following cities: We want to go to Hamilton; we want to go to Guelph; we want to go to Ottawa; we want to be in Kitchener, London, Windsor and Sudbury, in addition to the city of Toronto, because the people who are affected most by this legislation, the people who will be hurt by the 140,000 child care spaces that will be slashed from this province—those are the people who are mostly affected, those are the people we want to hear from and those are the people who the Liberals want to shut out of this process.

Not only do they want to shut them out of the process by time allocating this bill so we can’t talk about Bill 10, but they also want to ensure that the people who are affected most in suburban and rural Ontario, who are outside of the downtown core here in Toronto, are shut out of the debate. I think that is wrong, and that is why I’m proud to stand up for them.

I have another person here, Jillian Henderson, who has been quite active. She wrote to me as well. She also wrote to the Premier and to the education minister. She says this, and this is, I think, a well-known and established fact now: “Currently Bill 10 will limit spaces, raise fees and provide no incentives for providers to license through existing for-profit agencies. There is no increased accountability, no registry ... this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a lawsuit against the province....

“Please allow Bill 10 to travel the province.... That is what democracy is and what our children deserve.”

I couldn’t agree more with Jillian; I think Jillian has it right. Jillian is speaking up on behalf of those who are child care providers, as well as those who have children.

The final letter I want to read into the record before I talk about a meeting I had on Friday is from Megan Pare. Megan is from Lively, Ontario. She says, “If Bill 10 passes, I will be forced to terminate care to four of my seven part-time and full-time children. Two of those children are twins! Now tell me, where will these 12-month-old twin boys go?” That’s going to be a challenge now for this child care operator, but also for the parents of these twins.

I can tell you, Speaker, it wasn’t so long ago when my husband and I had to set out to find child care for our daughter, Victoria. Most people in this assembly will remember I arrived at Queen’s Park with a brand-spanking-new baby. She was a sweet little baby and she is a sweet little girl now. We chose our child care. We chose it as parents. We believed we had the responsibility to find adequate care and quality care for our child. We also believed it was our responsibility to ensure she was safe. But we had the choice.

What is happening with Bill 10 is that choice is being ripped away from parents choosing the care they want for their child. They are taking away responsibility and they are taking away choice, all because the Ombudsman found that the Ministry of Education wasn’t enforcing its own rules. He said—not us in the opposition, the Ombudsman—that the government didn’t do its job.

I had the opportunity to meet with the Ombudsman on Friday and we had a long-ranging discussion about a number of pieces of legislation and a number of issues, ranging from hydro to government accountability. I took the opportunity to talk to him about Bill 10. I talked to him about some of the allegations being made from the members opposite in the Liberal caucus and some of the suggestions that the Minister of Education was making about unlicensed child care being illegal, which he has never said.

But what he has said—and he has never, by the way, said that we should eliminate unlicensed child care in the province of Ontario; I want that written into the record. I want the Minister of Education to acknowledge that, because he never once ever uttered the words that we should eliminate unlicensed child care. That is what the minister wants to say. The minister wants to eliminate these 140,000 child care spaces. Why? Because they want to bring universal daycare in the back door, similar to what Paul Martin did back in the early 2000s, which was adamantly rejected not only by Ontarians but by all Canadians.

Speaker, I propose that you allow this bill to travel; that the Minister of Education listen to the stakeholders; that we come back to this assembly in the spring session and we talk about what will work, not what won’t work, and we protect those 140,000 child care spaces.

In my final few minutes, I’d like to acknowledge the opposition House leader, Mr. Steve Clark from Leeds–Grenville, for the work he has done in order to try to make this bill travel; as well as the strong work by our education critic, Garfield Dunlop, who has never once let up for one moment. Thank you.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House, but sometimes it’s more difficult to do so than others. I think this is one of the more difficult ones.

I’d like to first put this in context. Now we’re discussing four things: We’re discussing the bill on child care; we’re discussing an amendment; we’re discussing a subamendment; and we should be thinking about the reasons behind this bill and behind this time allocation motion. The root cause of this is an antiquated system which contributed to a tragic loss of life; that’s the root cause of this. The government responded by putting forward a bill; our member from Hamilton Mountain responded by asking the Ombudsman to look into our child care system. The Ombudsman came out with a report this October which was very damning to the government.

The government responds with this bill, and responds by saying, “We have to do this right away”—right away; push, push, push. But in the House, when questioned by our member from Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Education said that a lot of the issues brought forward in the Ombudsman’s report have already been dealt with. So the argument that this bill has to be finished as soon as possible is somewhat doubtful.

The government responds by putting a time allocation motion forward, once again saying that the opposition parties are trying to stall this legislation. I can certainly say, as far as the New Democratic caucus, we are not trying to stall this legislation at all. We are trying to do our part to make sure it’s done right. That’s the job of this Legislature: to do as good a job as possible to make this legislation as effective as possible. Once again, we are not dealing with widgets or traffic signs; we are dealing with our children.

It’s a bit of double-speak to say that we have to move right now because the system is so antiquated when we’ve had the same government in place for more than a decade. All of sudden, for the rush to be on—so that’s the background.

We have a time allocation motion and, basically, that’s limiting the members’ ability to speak to this bill. Although we don’t agree, we don’t think that that’s the main issue here. We’re also limiting the public’s ability to speak to this bill. With the hearings being held in Toronto, and with two days of hearings: We’re in favour of that. Certainly there’s a large population base here in Toronto and they have child care issues, obviously. Do we feel that hearings should be held in Toronto? Of course. Mr.

Bradley, when he spoke to this motion—I’d like to quote from the Hansard: “This motion allows for two days of public hearings that go into the evening—now that’s something a little different; go right into the evening—so that all who have an interest in this important piece of legislation can appear before the committee.” That’s where there’s a problem, because “all who have an interest” do not have the ability to appear before this committee.

I’ve often heard the Premier say that she’s the Premier of all Ontario; she believes in one Ontario. We agree, but one Ontario is much bigger than having a committee meeting in one spot, specifically in Queen’s Park, especially in a case like this because, yes, stakeholder groups are equipped to travel, but what this committee should really hear are the different experiences from people who actually experience the child care system in the various parts of Ontario.

I’ve often spoken in this House about other legislation that looks excellent on paper but doesn’t work on the ground. We can’t afford to do this.

Yesterday, in the late show—I happened to stay for part of the late show, and the response from the member from—I know Mr. Crack’s name. I don’t know his—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. John Vanthof: —Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. He said that this was groundbreaking legislation and it was a monumental shift. Well, if it’s groundbreaking and monumental, we should take the time to listen to people to make sure it’s done right. That’s the issue.

At no time does our caucus believe that we should stall this for political purposes. We’re not trying to do that. We are trying to get as many voices as possible, constructive voices from across the province, to have input in this bill and to be able to relay their experiences. That is the crucial part of this. That’s why we proposed the amendment that this bill be travelled.

I believe that’s why the Tories—I’m not partial to their inner workings, but I believe that’s what they’re proposing with this subamendment. Our issue with the subamendment: We believe that it should be the committee that decides where they go as opposed to us, but that is neither here nor there.

But it is important—it’s crucial—that this bill hear as many voices from as many parents, from as many child care providers, licensed and unlicensed, as possible.

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

There being no further debate, I will call the question on the amendment to the motion.

Ms. MacLeod has moved that the amendment to the motion be amended by deleting the number “5” and replacing it with the number “7,” and deleting “as determined by the committee” and replacing it with “in the following locations: Hamilton, Guelph, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Windsor and Sudbury.”

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

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

I believe the nays have it.

Call in the members—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de sauvegarde de l’intégrité des soins de santé

Mr. Hoskins moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to safeguard health care integrity by enacting the Voluntary Blood Donations Act, 2014 and by amending certain statutes with respect to the regulation of pharmacies and other matters concerning regulated health professions / Projet de loi 21, Loi visant à sauvegarder l’intégrité des soins de santé par l’édiction de la Loi de 2014 sur le don de sang volontaire et la modification de certaines lois en ce qui concerne la réglementation des pharmacies et d’autres questions relatives aux professions de la santé réglementées.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Mr. Hoskins.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Halton.

Today I’d like to further discuss our government’s Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014, that would combine two previously introduced pieces of legislation that expired on the order paper in May. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I introduced Bill 21 on July 22.

This proposed legislation would combine our government’s actions to prohibit compensation to blood and plasma donors in Ontario, and the regulation of hospital pharmacies and other actions to strengthen oversight and improve patient safety.

Let me start with blood and plasma donation, and then I’ll move to the regulation of our hospital pharmacies.

Every year, thousands of Ontarians voluntarily give blood and plasma to help others survive accidents, surgery or other life-threatening conditions. Voluntary donation is an important pillar of our province’s, and indeed our country’s, public blood system. This is a system that has been managed by Canadian Blood Services, a public, not-for-profit organization, for more than 15 years. Canadian Blood Services maintains a national, centralized system that has strong quality assurance and oversight measures, and, in fact, is recognized as one of the safest systems in the world.

Our voluntary blood donation system ensures that blood and plasma collection in this province remains true to our common values.

Health Canada has received licence applications from at least one private, for-profit company that is seeking to open plasma collection sites in Ontario—a company that would pay people for their plasma, plasma being a component of blood. However, Health Canada has also left the decision to permit or prohibit payment for blood or plasma donations to each of the provinces and territories.

Since this matter first arose, we’ve heard from many, many health care organizations, advocacy groups and, indeed, individual Ontarians who are opposed to private, for-profit plasma collection. As a government, we agree, and we stand firmly against payment for blood or plasma donations in Ontario. That’s why our government is taking steps to protect the integrity of our national and provincial blood donation system and to avoid the development of a parallel private collection system in this province.

I’m pleased to say that we’ve already made progress. As a first step, we amended two existing regulations under the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act to strengthen the licensing requirements for labs and specimen collection centres in Ontario, and specifically to prohibit payment to donors for their blood or their plasma. That includes reimbursement of expenses and other forms of compensation.

As a second step, I introduced this legislation, which includes a revised version of the previously introduced Voluntary Blood Donations Act, 2014. If enacted, this new statute would clearly and unequivocally prohibit paying people for blood and plasma donations in order to maintain the integrity of our public, volunteer blood-collection system in Ontario and in this nation.

It’s important to note that Canadian Blood Services would be exempt from this prohibition so that, in the case of rare circumstances, they may pay blood and plasma donors if they ever deemed such a measure to be necessary. In fact, this exemption is in line with the commission of inquiry led by Justice Horace Krever, which recommended measures to ensure that donors of blood and plasma not be paid, except in rare circumstances.

Our revisions also make it clear that researchers would be exempt from the prohibition against paying for blood donations as long as the collected blood is being used exclusively for research purposes—for example, in clinical trials. The proposed legislation will also strengthen our regulatory enforcement tools so that we can take swift and decisive action when required in case of violations.

Speaker, I want you and the members to know that our government takes the supply of blood, plasma and plasma-based products for patients very, very seriously. We have full confidence in the ability of Canadian Blood Services to continue successfully managing Canada’s blood and plasma supply.

This decision to prohibit payment for blood or plasma donations will in no way reduce the supply or availability of blood or blood products for Ontarians, but it will protect the integrity of our current voluntary blood donation system—quite frankly, a system that works. We are fortunate in Ontario to have a well-managed, centralized system with strong quality assurance and oversight measures in place. In fact, our blood donation system is now recognized as one of the safest in the world. So there’s no identified need for a parallel system in this province or in this country.

The second part of the bill is our government’s response to a very serious incident last year, when 1,019 patients in Ontario received weaker doses of chemotherapy drugs than had been prescribed by their oncologists. Our government committed to implementing the 12 recommendations made by Dr. Jake Thiessen, who was appointed to conduct an investigation to determine the cause of the underdosing and the appropriate response. One of those recommendations requires legislative changes, which this proposed legislation addresses.

If passed, our proposed legislation would amend the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act so that the Ontario College of Pharmacists can then inspect and license all hospital pharmacies in Ontario as a means to ensure that medication management and processing systems that are in place in hospital pharmacies are standardized.

At the same time, I’m introducing additional amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the Public Hospitals Act that would enhance communications among health systems partners, including our health regulatory colleges, our public hospitals and others, in order to strengthen oversight and better protect patients.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I’d like to thank our valued partners for their support on all parts of this legislation, including the Canadian Society for Transfusion Medicine, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, the Canadian AIDS Society, the advocates for those affected by tainted blood, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario College of Pharmacists and the Ontario Hospital Association.

I’m very proud of our voluntary, life-saving blood donation system. I’m also proud of the care that health professionals in Ontario provide to patients every day. In fact, I encourage all Ontarians to donate blood if they are able to do so.

I have full confidence in Canada’s national blood system, and I know that Canadian Blood Services has the ability to successfully manage the blood and blood products supply for Ontarians.

More importantly, we must not allow our cherished health care system and our voluntary blood donation system to be compromised in any way.

With this legislation, we will be able to act decisively to protect the integrity of our current blood donation system and our hospital pharmacy services. I am confidently optimistic that all the members of this Legislature will be able to stand behind this proposed legislation.

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

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to expand on the remarks made by Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, regarding our government’s Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014, which would prohibit payments to Ontarians for their blood and plasma and enhance the regulation of hospital pharmacies.

With this proposed legislation, our government is taking decisive action to maintain the integrity of the province’s health care system. The proposed Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014, is a combination of two time-sensitive bills that were previously introduced by the then Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Deb Matthews, but which died on the order paper in May 2014.

To start off, I’ll discuss the part of the proposed legislation dealing with paid blood and plasma. Members may recall that a private for-profit company has established two clinics in Toronto and intends to pay $25 per visit for plasma donations, up to a maximum of $100 per month per person. A third clinic in Hamilton is also planned. Our government believes that allowing private clinics to pay individuals for plasma donations would risk the integrity of our voluntary blood donation system, which has been successfully administered for years by a single integrated national blood service.

Canadian Blood Services was established as a central, national, not-for-profit organization through an agreement among federal, provincial and territorial governments. As an independent organization, Canadian Blood Services operates at arm’s-length from governments and has complete management discretion over all operational blood system decisions. At the same time, Ministers of Health are responsible for the overall expenditure of public funds by Canadian Blood Services, for selecting a board of directors, and for the effectiveness of the overall blood supply system.

CBS currently manages the blood and blood product supply in Ontario. Its activities include blood and plasma collection from Ontario donors and the procurement and distribution of plasma and plasma-derived products to Ontario hospitals.

Canadians are well aware that CBS has successfully managed our blood and blood product supply for more than 15 years. Because of the tireless commitment, dedication and hard work of CBS staff, Canadians can be confident in the safety and sustainability of our current blood and blood products.

However, the introduction of private for-profit plasma donation clinics in Ontario would radically alter the blood system currently in place in the province.

Our government is committed to protecting the integrity of the current CBS-led blood and plasma donation system in Ontario. We know that this system works, and we have no compelling reason to risk drastically changing it by allowing the introduction of private for-profit plasma collection clinics in Ontario.

The foregoing forms the backdrop to the current situation in Ontario. Let me now turn to some of the actions our government took prior to introducing this proposed legislation.

On March 11, 2013, in a letter to the federal Minister of Health, Minister Deb Matthews called on the federal government to not approve any paid donor blood or plasma collection clinics until an open consultation with provincial health regulators, care providers, CBS and the general public was conducted.

In response, Health Canada held a targeted round table discussion with 26 participants on April 10, 2013. They also held an online public consultation, the results of which were not released.

The federal government has made it very clear that it believes that it is up to the provinces and territories to decide what to do about the question of payment for donations. That is why we are bringing forward legislation in Ontario to prohibit paying for blood donations.

As a first step, in March 2014 we amended regulations to strengthen licensing requirements for labs and specimen collection centres to prohibit paying donors for their blood or blood constituents.

On March 20, 2014, our government introduced Bill 178, the Voluntary Blood Donations Act, 2014, which would have made it illegal to provide or accept payment for blood donations in Ontario. Bill 178 passed second reading but died on the order paper with the dissolution of the Legislature in May 2014.

The new statute proposed in Bill 178 was reintroduced on July 22, 2014, with minor changes, as

schedule 1 to the proposed Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014—Bill 21.

Schedule 1 to Bill 21 differs from its previous iteration in Bill 178 in that it contains certain changes which were incorporated in response to stakeholder input and legal recommendations relating to enforcement. For example, the newly proposed Voluntary Blood Donations Act includes a provision which would enable the minister to apply to the Superior Court of Justice for a restraining order against persons who are not complying with the act. Similarly,

schedule 1 would exempt blood that is given solely for the purpose of research, such as clinical trials or population health studies.

We are also proposing to amend the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act to authorize regulations to include or exclude places required to be licensed under this act, expand the public-interest grounds to deny a licence for new blood collection facilities, and strengthen our lab enforcement regime so that we can take quick and decisive action in cases of violation.

Speaker, we are proud of our volunteer donors and we strongly support Ontarians as they continue giving blood and plasma voluntarily. Our proposed legislation would, if passed, protect the integrity of the national public voluntary blood donor system.

Over the past year, we have heard from many health care organizations and individual Ontarians who are opposed to private, for-profit plasma collection, and we agree with them unreservedly. There is no identified need for such a parallel system in Canada, since we are fortunate to have a well-managed, centralized system, with strong quality assurance and oversight measures, that is now recognized as one of the safest in the world. The principle of voluntary donation is critical to Canada’s blood system.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must not allow our cherished publicly funded health care system and our voluntary blood donation system to be compromised.

The second part of our proposed legislation has a number of elements, but let me start with the background.

You will recall that in March 2013, Cancer Care Ontario advised us that two chemotherapy drugs used at four Ontario hospitals had been over-diluted. As a result, patients received a lower dose of these drugs to treat their cancer than had been prescribed by their oncologist.

In response, our government appointed Dr. Jake Thiessen to review the underdosing incident and submit recommendations to prevent future similar incidents. Dr. Thiessen visited each of the Ontario hospitals where the underdosing had occurred, beginning with Peterborough Regional Health Centre, where an attentive pharmacy technician first drew attention to the differences in the labelling of bags of intravenous medication between the hospital’s old and new suppliers.

On August 7, 2013, the former Minister of Health and Long-Term Care released Dr. Thiessen’s report, A Review of the Oncology Under-Dosing Incident. At that time, the minister committed to implementing the 12 recommendations contained in the report.

The report contains a detailed factual review of the case of underdosing of chemotherapy drugs at four Ontario hospitals and one in New Brunswick. Dr. Thiessen also developed recommendations that would prevent a similar incident from occurring again.

Dr. Thiessen’s review found that there was no evidence of any malicious or deliberate drug-sparing dilution by Marchese Hospital Solutions. Dr. Thiessen reported that the health care system reacted quickly and effectively to protect patients upon discovering the incident, revealing a concerted resolve to address the issue squarely and urgently. He also found that the actions of professionals, including administrators, doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other personnel, were “a credit to our health care system.”

I would like to take this opportunity now to thank our dedicated health care professionals for their continued commitment to caring for their patients, and to their patients’ safety.

Dr. Thiessen’s report contains a number of recommendations to prevent future incidents, directed towards five entities: group purchasing organizations, Marchese Hospital Solutions, Ontario College of Pharmacists, Ontario Hospital Association, and Health Canada.

The review highlighted a number of factors that led to the chemotherapy drugs being over-diluted. Among these was the fact that the medication management and processing systems in hospital pharmacies were not standardized across the province. And, although currently the Ontario College of Pharmacists has the authority to inspect community pharmacies, it provides no oversight of hospital pharmacies. That is the responsibility of the hospital itself. So, in the interest of protecting patients, the report recommended that the college also inspect hospital pharmacies.

This would allow for a consistent standard and mandatory compliance of operations when they have the potential to put patient safety at risk.

We have accepted all the recommendations of Dr. Thiessen and are continuing to work closely with the college, hospitals and other impacted sectors as well as with Health Canada on areas that are outside the province’s jurisdiction.

The ministry established an implementation task force composed of government and stakeholder representatives to oversee the implementation of Dr. Thiessen’s recommendations. By late April 2014, all of Dr. Thiessen’s recommendations were either completed or well under way to being implemented, and as a result, the task force was disbanded. Ongoing oversight to ensure the recommendations continue to be implemented is being provided through existing relationships with the ministry and its partners.

Recommendation 12, relating to allowing the Ontario College of Pharmacists to license all pharmacies operating within Ontario’s hospitals, is not currently provided for in legislation, hence these proposed amendments.

First, we’re proposing to amend the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, which is the statute that currently gives the college the authority to license and inspect pharmacies in the community. The act, which would be modified as appropriate for the hospital context, already sets out the framework the college needs to perform inspections, provide for quality assurance monitoring and enforce licensing requirements.

Second, the proposal would build in regulation-making powers for the government to extend the college’s oversight of pharmacies in other settings, if the need is identified in the future. This mechanism would facilitate potential expansion of the college’s oversight without further amendments to legislation.

We have been working very closely with the college and the Ontario Hospital Association on these amendments and will continue to do so. Both support the licensing proposal for hospital pharmacies and have expressed strong interest in working together to develop the necessary standards and processes to enable the new licensing scheme, if legislative amendments are passed.

At the same time, we are introducing additional amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the Public Hospitals Act to strengthen oversight and protect patients better. We are proposing to:

(1) Enable health regulatory colleges to more readily share information with public health authorities, as may be required for the administration of the province’s Health Protection and Promotion Act. Currently, health regulatory colleges are under a general duty to keep all information that comes to their knowledge in the course of their duties confidential, subject to certain specified exceptions in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. These confidentiality rules are designed to assist the college in carrying out its regulatory functions.

Therefore, health regulatory colleges are only able to share information obtained in the course of carrying out their duties with other entities, including with other public health authorities, in accordance with those specified exemptions.

Health regulatory colleges have indicated to the ministry that their consideration of when they do and do not have the authority to disclose information to public health authorities under the existing legislation scheme in the RHPA is not always straightforward. This is why we are proposing to add additional exemptions to the RHPA in order to further clarify the authority of health regulatory colleges to share such information with public health authorities as may be required for the administration of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, in order to allow such entities to better carry out their crucial public health functions and to better safeguard the well-being of all Ontarians.

(2) Permit regulatory colleges to share information with a hospital where it was obtained by a college’s investigator. Currently, as discussed a moment ago, when a college acquires information during the course of an investigation that may be relevant to patient care and safety in hospital, the college’s ability to share such information may be limited in accordance with the confidentiality exemptions currently set out in the RHPA.

Let’s say a college investigates a gastroenterologist and obtains information in the course of an investigation of a complaint that, for example, indicates a potential issue relating to the quality of diagnostic service provided at a public hospital where the gastroenterologist also practises. This information could conceivably improve the hospital’s processes, which could result in better patient care. Unless the college can establish that the sharing of such information would fall within an existing confidentiality exemption as currently set out in the RHPA, the college may be prevented from sharing such information with that public hospital.

As such, the amendments being proposed here are intended to allow colleges to more readily share information with a public hospital and with other prescribed entities in circumstances where a college is investigating a complaint involving a member where the information was obtained by an investigator appointed by the registrar of a college. In particular, a regulation would set out the purposes for which such information could be shared with the public hospital, together with any additional restrictions regarding the sharing of the information by a college with hospitals as well as with other persons.

Accordingly, the bill would also create new Lieutenant Governor in Council regulation-making authority to prescribe any additional persons—for example, other than public hospitals—with whom colleges could share information, where a college is investigating a member; and prescribe purposes for, and any limitations on, the sharing of such information.

If our proposed amendments were passed, a public hospital would be better able to receive information from a college in a timely fashion, where appropriate, regarding college investigations that may be relevant to the safety and care of their patients, and to take any necessary and appropriate action on that basis.

(3) Require a hospital or other employer to make a mandatory report to a health regulatory college where a regulated health professional has resigned, voluntarily relinquished or restricted his or her practice or privileges and where the hospital or employer has reasonable grounds to believe that such an action was because of concerns regarding the member’s conduct or practice related to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.

Such mandatory reports are an important feature of the RHPA’s legislative scheme and are intended to ensure that the colleges receive information regarding their members’ conduct that they need but might not otherwise have, in order to carry out their public protection mandate.

In the past, the health regulatory colleges have expressed concerns to the ministry that such mandatory reports are not being made with sufficient frequency or are potentially being circumvented. The current provisions in the legislation contemplate the requirement for a mandatory report where the hospital or employer intended to terminate an individual or to revoke his or her privileges but the individual resigned or relinquished his or her hospital privileges.

Our proposed amendments in the bill are intended to address these types of situations and expand the existing mandatory reporting requirement. Specifically, a hospital or employer that intended to terminate an individual or to revoke his or her privileges would be required to make a mandatory report to a college where a member resigns or voluntarily relinquishes or restricts his or her privileges or practice, and a person who employs or offers privileges to a member has reasonable grounds to believe that the resignation is related to the member’s professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.

These important changes would allow the colleges to better carry out their mandate to act in the public interest and protect patients.

(4) Allow the government to more quickly appoint a college supervisor in order to address any serious concerns regarding the quality of a college’s administration and management of its operations.

We are proposing amendments to the existing power in the statute to appoint a college supervisor that would more closely align those provisions with, for example, the hospital supervisor provisions under the Public Hospitals Act. In particular, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon recommendation of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, would be able to appoint a college supervisor where the minister considers it appropriate or necessary.

The act also sets out a number of factors to be considered by the minister before making such a recommendation to appoint a supervisor, as well as the requirement to give notice of such an action to the relevant college and to review any submissions made by the relevant college to the minister concerning the proposed appointment.

(5) Finally, provide health regulatory colleges the flexibility to better focus their investigation of complaints on those matters that could potentially, if established, constitute professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.

Under the RHPA scheme, colleges are required to investigate every complaint received by the college. Health regulatory colleges have clearly indicated to the ministry and the government that, in their experience, the investigation of unmeritorious complaints places the college’s limited resources under unnecessary pressure and prevents more timely investigation of other complaints that are more clearly relevant to issues of patient care and safety.

Under our proposed changes to the legislation, the RHPA would be amended to permit the college registrar to streamline the complaints that would be investigated by the ICRC. The registrar would be able to make a determination, within 30 days of the receipt of a complaint and prior to the appointment of a formal ICRC panel to investigate the complaint, that it is not reasonable to believe that the allegations contained in the complaint, if established, could constitute professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of a member. As such, the complaint could not properly be considered to be within the regulatory scope of the college and would not need to be investigated.

In order to balance the addition of such an authority for the registrar with the need for complainants to feel that their complaints are being dealt with thoroughly and fairly by the college, the legislation would also provide the complainant with the option of requesting a review of the registrar’s determination by a panel of the college’s ICRC which is struck expressly for that purpose.

I’d like to thank the College of Pharmacists and the Ontario Hospital Association for working with us so diligently in the spring and early summer of 2013 as, together, we investigated what happened in the chemotherapy underdosing incident and, even more importantly, for helping us to ensure that it does not happen again.

These proposed amendments would go a long way toward reducing the possibility of such an incident in the future. With the help of our health regulatory colleges, the amendments will enable a more rapid and integrated response to potential future incidents and enhance communication among entities that are responsible for patient safety.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to stand and talk to Bill 21, the Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act. In all honesty, I want to compliment the minister and his staff for bringing forward this bill. I think it’s long overdue.

When we talk about the chemotherapy issue that came out last year, the underdosing, I’m glad to see that they are putting in provisions whereby the Ontario College of Pharmacists will be given the authority to license and inspect all hospital pharmacies. That type of incident is just unthinkable, let alone unheard of. Of course, you think about the patients who were, in fact, affected by that and the concerns of the families and everyone else. We just can’t have that. So I was glad to see there’s greater oversight that is being provided by the ministry in that regard.

With regard to the fact that Ontario doesn’t collect enough plasma to be completely self-sustaining, I think that, of course, we need to have additional provisions.

This particular bill actually addresses six acts: the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Health System Improvements Act, the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act, the Public Hospitals Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act and, of course, the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act.

Again, I see this as a tightening up of a system that is long overdue. I do appreciate the effort. We will be supporting this bill with amendments to it as well, as we see there may be some additional opportunities once this bill gets into committee. Again, I commend the minister for that.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m glad that this bill has come forward once again in the Legislature because my riding of London–Fanshawe and the city of London—and the Minister of Health is nodding. He very well knows how terrible it was in our area with the underdosing of chemotherapy drugs. We had the most patients affected out of all those 1,119 patients. So it was very devastating to us, and I’m not going to go over a lot of the things that happened in the very short time in London where people’s confidence was shaken in the health care system.

But this certainly really made people stop and think about how this could have happened. So it’s good to see that there is going to be that oversight with the College of Pharmacists to go into the hospital pharmacies.

But what was really concerning to New Democrats was that this type of thing was outsourced out of the hospital to begin it with, and it just spun out of control. Now here we are putting more legislation in place for something that we should really have had—there has to be a lot more foresight when we make legislation in the House that affects people’s health: analyze it and figure out how that is going to affect other areas outside of the health care system and how it eventually comes back to patients.

One thing I do want to point out, though—and I had my lawyer friend here look into the legislation. I’d like to know what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is, where the Canadian Blood Services are able to pay for blood donations and research. That’s something I’d like to put to the minister: What is the definition or the parameters of what’s exceptional in this bill?

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to talk for a couple of minutes about two really important components of this bill. It’s really good to hear that members of both parties have said they agree fundamentally with the principles of this bill and are working together to move it ahead. I hope—and count on the opposition parties supporting this very important piece of legislation.

I think, like all Ontarians, we were shocked by what happened with regard to the chemotherapy drugs. But this legislation, as has been pointed out this morning, will go a long way to fixing that problem and making sure that there are regulations in place, that there is oversight in place, to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Following the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s, Canada’s blood system was established on the principle of voluntary donation. It was poignant—to me, anyway—this morning that we had a breakfast, sponsored by a hepatitis C group, to talk about new treatments for that disease. I know that this rings true with them.

It’s a belief in voluntary donation that was upheld by the Krever commission, which recommended that donors of blood and plasma should not be paid for their donations except in rare circumstances. I think that, going forward, that’s what people in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora have told me when I’ve talked to them about issues around this, and I think that’s true right across Ontario.

We look forward to the participation and thoughtful input of the members opposite in moving this bill ahead.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m pleased to rise to comment on the leadoff today. I think it’s a very serious question. I’m glad to hear there’s more oversight, because I think that in a lot of areas over the last while, we’ve seen this missing.

It brings up some questions about the voluntary donations. It’s a serious question, because 70% of the plasma that we use is actually imported and comes from paid donors. I think we’d like to see some discussion at the committee stage, to have some serious discussion. It’s easy to turn a blind eye and say, “We are not going to do it.”

When you know that significantly more than half the blood you receive is through paid donations that are outside of your control, sometimes it’s better to look at it and have some control over the situation and the patients who are coming in. It’s not an easy question, and there’s not any right answer on this, but I think it needs some careful consideration and a chance for the parties to get together and seriously look at what the right answer is. As I say, sometimes when you can control the conditions, you’re better off than just straight importing, because then you do lose control.

There have been a lot of serious things that have gone on in the past, like the chemotherapy issue. As long as there are people involved, there are going to be mistakes. Trying to reduce the opportunity for those mistakes to happen again is always worthwhile. It’s very unfortunate that it happened. It likely won’t be the last thing that happens. When people are making decisions on formulas and trying to get them right, there’s always that chance for a mistake.

We’re looking forward to this bill. We will support it. As I say, I think some of the issues need to be looked at in committee, and we look forward to that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Either the minister or the member from Halton has two minutes.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: First of all, I want to thank the members opposite, the members from Chatham–Kent–Essex and also London–Fanshawe. I really appreciate the fact that you all are pleased with this move and also are supporting it. We all agree, I think, that these restrictions are timely and are very important to protecting our health care and ensuring that our systems are safe and secure.

Once again, our government is committed to protecting the integrity of the current CBS-led blood and plasma donation system in Ontario. We know that this system works, and we have no compelling reason to risk drastically changing it by allowing the introduction of private for-profit plasma collection clinics in Ontario. These actions that are being proposed are going to ensure the safety of our system for everyone.

Following the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s, Canada’s blood system was established on the principle of voluntary donation. This belief was upheld by the Krever commission, and it recommends that donors of blood and plasma should not be paid for their donations except in rare circumstances. The commission also recommended that Canada’s national blood system should be administered by a single integrated national blood service.

I think the proposals that we are moving forward with today and putting before the House support and reiterate the fact that we need to make sure that our system is safe. After all, this is ultimately about protecting our Ontario residents, protecting people when they are ill and ensuring that our system is safe and delivers service as efficiently and as well as possible.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d like to welcome a constituent from my riding, Ray Linseman, who is here with the Professional Engineers of Ontario. I think he’s allowing the Premier to come down for question period; I know he was just talking to her.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to give a warm welcome to a good friend of mine from Windsor, Mr. Bill Carter. Bill is the board chair of the Canadian Automobile Association. Welcome to all of his colleagues who are here today as part of the CAA advocacy day.

I’d like to also extend an invitation to you and all the members to join the CAA lunch reception taking place in room 228. Again, welcome everyone to Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We’ll get through this quickly, please. As a reminder, just introduce your guests, because all these other announcements are the responsibility of everybody else, so that we can get all of those wonderful introductions done.

The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure today to announce that Josée Stephens is a page captain, and her mother Tina; father, Troy; and brother Bowen are here in the west members’ gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Harris: I would also like to welcome Amy Bryson, a board member of CAA South Central Ontario; Teresa Di Felice, the director of government and community relations and driver training with CAA; Elliott Silverstein, the manager of government relations; and Jeff Chesebrough, vice-chair of CAA Niagara. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today, we have Mark Wales, who is president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; and Eleanor Renaud, who is a director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today William and Jenny Kapteyn from Sarnia–Lambton, whose grandson Callum Robertson is a page with us today. I’d like to ask the members to welcome them.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’d ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Gurbir Singh Mander. He’s a student from Castlebrooke here at Take Our Kids to Work Day; I’ve adopted him for the day.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to welcome Piers Burnfield Wiebe, who is joining us today from Harbord Collegiate for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome, Piers.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to introduce members of the Queen’s University PC Campus Association: Vanessa Walsh, Stuart Clark, Scott Clark, Kanivanan Chinniah, Edward Burroughs and Michael Mastromarco.

I just want to say to the Premier: They are PCs; hands off. I saw you over there recruiting them a little while ago. I know you’re a grad from Queen’s, and we appreciate that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay, okay. Thank you.

York Centre.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I would like to welcome Warren Ali, a former Queen’s Park staffer, and his son, Adrien.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to welcome Matthew Turack, division president for insurance at CAA South Central Ontario; Chris Stamp, director of automotive services, CAA South Central Ontario; and Jack Campbell, chair of CAA North and East Ontario. I just want to mention that the CAA South Central office is in my riding of Thornhill.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Pam Orchard, Jill Lang Ward and Marsha McWhinney who represent Myeloma Canada. They have made the journey from Algoma to come down and visit us, so I certainly wanted to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

We also had the visitors from Hepatitis C Ontario who came and treated us to breakfast this morning: Stéphane Lassignardie, Dr. Jordan Feld, Melanie Kearns, Cheryl Dale and Alex. Thank you very much for the insight into hepatitis C.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to introduce two great constituents of mine from Ajax, Ontario: Bev and Dave Sheehan. Bev and Dave are here today in the Legislature at Queen’s Park to see their grandchild, a wonderful page. I know that any other introductions will be made by the Speaker. I thank you for that opportunity.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I have two introductions today. Already introduced from Malahide council is Mark Wales. Thanks for coming down, Mark.

Also, my nephew Matt Yurek is here today. It’s Take Our Kids to Work Day, and he decided to come and hang out here and see what we’re all about.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Marie-Thérèse, the page captain for today, has family in the east members’ gallery today: Rosa Campione, her mother; Phil Campione, her father; Elizabeth-Anne Campione, her sister; Catherine-Rose Campione, her sister; Joseph-Paul Campione, her brother; Beth Taccad, a friend; and her grandparents, Giovanna Mete and Vittorio Mete. I hope they have a wonderful day here today.

Mr. Bill Walker: I may have missed this when the member for Northumberland–Quinte West did the introduction, but I want to make sure that Bowen Stephens, the brother of page Josée, is also acknowledged in these remarks, along with Tina and Troy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome representatives from the Canadian Treatment Action Council and the Canadian Liver Foundation to Queen’s Park, who were here this morning for the legislative breakfast on hepatitis C. Thank you so much for joining us.

I also want to take the opportunity here to welcome Myeloma Canada’s first QP day. I want to welcome Cindy Leder, Norma Lindner, Jill Lang Ward and Bob McCaw. Please welcome them.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to welcome Sharon Rider here today. She’s a constituent of mine. She spoke very well this morning at the legislative breakfast on hepatitis C. We welcome her here today as well.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As many others have mentioned, I’m very happy to have the following reps from CAA here with us in the members’ gallery: Matthew Turack, Tracy Nickleford and Jay Woo.

As well, I’d like to introduce Adam Green, who is here today working with MTO for Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like you to join me in welcoming representatives from the Ontario Association of Medical Radiation Sciences. They’re here to watch and learn from question period.

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s my pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine from Scarborough–Rouge River, Kumar Ramcharran, and a really good friend as well, Monsieur Alain Lajoie, de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. They’re in the members’ east gallery. I welcome them to Queen’s Park. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m really excited to welcome my niece, Aleks Windsor, to Queen’s Park today, and also a former legislative page, Julia Brunet, both from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: In the gallery opposite, I’d like to welcome my friend Chris Drew, who played a very important role in the cycling components of Bill 31, which is now before the House.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I know that in the top two rows opposite me, we have young people who are visiting either guardian parents or family friends who work at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. I’d like to welcome them here this morning. I had a great opportunity to meet them.

Also, from the beautiful riding of Don Valley East, we have Andrew Greene, who’s joining us here today.

Mr. Steve Clark: I didn’t see her here in the House. I just want to welcome a long-time director with the Leeds county Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Eleanor Renaud.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to welcome into the House the representatives from Professional Engineers Ontario. The president, David Adams, invites everyone from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. to the dining room for a reception. Welcome, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the support you have provided to Justice Bélanger in the Elliot Lake report. Thank you very much. Merci.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislature today Kim Gavine from Conservation Ontario and Julie Cayley from Ducks Unlimited. Welcome.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure to welcome the family of our wonderful page, Colston Howell: Ellen Heron Howell, Tate Howell, Deirdre Heron and Helene Polatajko.

Also, we have Shayna Wise-Till, who’s here with her mother, who works for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m not sure if Daniel is here, but I’d like to welcome Daniel Hoogsteen from my riding of Burlington. He’s here for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Daniel is a former page in the Legislature.

I also add my voice to colleagues across the House in welcoming our friends from CAA to the Legislature today.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: We’ve had numerous introductions of many, many people here today. If anyone is feeling left out, I would like to welcome you personally to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s okay. That used to be my old line when I wasn’t sitting here.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One.

In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have the grandparents of page Morgan Walker: Beverly Sheehan and David Sheehan. Welcome. Yes, you’re allowed to stand and be recognized. That’s quite all right.

We also have with us former member David Warner, from Scarborough–Ellesmere, from the 30th, 31st, 33rd and 35th Parliaments, and Speaker in the 35th Parliament. He’s accompanied by his wife, Pat. Welcome, Pat.

We also have with us in the gallery today Yasunori Nakayama, the newly appointed consul general of Japan in Toronto. He’s accompanied by his deputy consul general, Tetsuya Yoshimoto.

We thank all our guests for being here today.

I will remind the members that it does make it go easier if I do the introductions as quickly as possible. I make the commitment to you that I shall always try to have our guests recognized, so I will take a little bit more time as necessary, as long as you help me get that done quickly by not doing other announcements. Those responsibilities are yours outside of the House, and I’d appreciate your co-operation.

Member’s privilege

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has given notice of his intention to raise a point of privilege. I am prepared to rule on the notice without hearing further from the member, as standing order 21 permits me to do.

Since the member’s notice makes clear that his matter relates entirely to proceedings in a legislative committee, it is therefore not appropriate that this first be raised in the House. Matters arising in committee may only be dealt with in the House on a report from the relevant committee.

In the absence of such a report from that committee, I can only find that the member’s attempt to raise a point of privilege in the House at this time is premature.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Public sector accountability

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question, this morning, is to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Minister, yesterday we talked about how in the last 15 months the Fairness Commissioner has expensed over $3,400 in limousine rides, $3.41 for airplane headphones and even $43.35 for a sightseeing tour in Finland—all to Ontario taxpayers. Yesterday, you also refused to answer a simple question, and that was whether you agreed with these types of expenses and entitlements.

Minister, I’m going to ask you again: Has your office ordered the Fairness Commissioner to repay these unfair expenses, and if so, how much has the Fairness Commissioner paid back?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member opposite for his question.

Speaker, our government has expense guidelines in place. They’re very clear. We expect them to be respected by all public officials at all levels of government. The Fairness Commissioner is required to follow the guidelines of the OPS travel, meal and hospitality expenses directive.

I understand that the documents disclosed to the PCs include expenses submitted to ministry officials that are not necessarily approved expenses. It is also my understanding that while expenses were paid and others withdrawn, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration is currently reviewing all the Ontario Fairness Commissioner’s expenses.

When this review is complete, I plan to release all expenses online to the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Minister, yesterday, your office stated that the Fairness Commissioner had withdrawn or paid back the unfair expenses. But according to an email dated January 2014, your deputy had approved all expenses submitted except for $18.92 worth of meal claims. That means the limo rides were approved and the sightseeing tour was approved.

Minister, I believe taxpayers have a right to know that your ministry paid over $20,000 in expenses in the last 15 months for what is described as a part-time job that already pays $1,700 per week. Minister, there’s a simple solution: Will you immediately order the Fairness Commissioner to begin posting her expenses online for all people in the province of Ontario to see?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. I wish the member opposite listened to my response. I have said I have instructed my ministry to start examining all the Ontario Fairness Commissioner’s expenses. When the review is completed, I plan to release them publicly, and it will be posted online.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the minister: Ontario’s current Fairness Commissioner is the first and only Fairness Commissioner that Ontario has ever had. She was appointed by your predecessor, the MPP for Eglinton–Lawrence, in exchange for giving up her federal seat to failed Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Minister, according to her website, the Fairness Commissioner presides over 13 senior staffers, one of whom is a close relative of the person who appointed her.

Minister, do you think it is fair for government appointees like the Fairness Commissioner to hire and employ relatives of the very person who appointed them?

Hon. Michael Chan: Again, thank you very much for the question. Speaker, our government has always been, and will always be, committed to openness, transparency and accountability.

That’s why we have brought forward Bill 8, the accountability act, which is currently before the House. The act will require all MPPs and senior executives in all agencies to post their expenses online, including the Fairness Commissioner. Bill 8 proposes to amend the Public Sector Expenses Review Act to provide the Integrity Commissioner with the ability to review executive expenses. The scope of the Integrity Commissioner’s review will expand to all 197 classified agencies, including the OFC.

Speaker, I’m sure that the member opposite will urge his caucus to pass the act.

Air ambulance service

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, we showed that, despite your Deputy Premier’s denial that she had any knowledge of the problems at Ornge prior to December 2011, an email from officials in her own office indicated otherwise. A document entitled “Confidential to the Minister” dated April 27, 2010, reads: “Ornge has advised the ministry that they have embarked upon a number of initiatives that were not contemplated in the original performance agreement.” That’s another one of the red flags that the committee was referring to in their report.

Premier, are you personally satisfied that your Deputy Premier knew nothing about the problems at Ornge before December 2011?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite is aware that there were many changes made at Ornge because the former Minister of Health knew that there were changes that needed to be made, and she made those changes: a new CEO, a new board of directors, a new senior management team. In fact, as I have said, it was exactly the Deputy Premier, in her role then as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, who made those changes.

When our government learned of the issues at Ornge, action was taken. The fact is that there is now a piece of legislation before this House that would further make changes at Ornge and would improve the oversight. So I hope that the members opposite will support us and will work to get that legislation passed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Premier: Your dogged defence of your Deputy Premier in the face of damning evidence against her tells Ontarians that you would rather defend one of your own than take responsibility for at least four deaths caused by your government’s negligence.

Another document the committee reviewed is a confidential ministry briefing note dated October 27, 2010, detailing the freedom-of-information requests from 2009, both by the Ministry of Health and the Management Board of Cabinet. The freedom-of-information requests ask about Dr. Mazza’s salary, procurement policies at Ornge, and their purchase of speedboats.

Premier, are you still prepared to stand by your Deputy Premier’s position that she knew nothing of the troubles at Ornge in 2010?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, what I’m standing behind is the fact that our government took action, led by the Deputy Premier in her role then as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We took action and we made changes at Ornge. We put in place a piece of legislation that is before the House, and actually has been before the House since February 2013, when Bill 11 was first introduced. It has been before the House. We hope that the opposition will work with us to get that passed, so that increased oversight will be in place for Ornge.

The fact is that the committee has now got the report. The report has been released, and I understand it was a Liberal motion that got that report tabled. That’s a good thing. We’re glad that the report is now available.

As I say, we want to make sure that there is as much oversight and as stringent oversight as possible. That’s why we need the help of the opposition to get that legislation passed.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Premier, your persistent denials would be comical but for the fact that your Deputy Premier’s see-no-evil, hear-no-evil strategy on Ornge contributed to the deaths of four Ornge employees. Your Deputy Premier either didn’t read these documents, or she read them and chose to ignore them. Either way, patients in Ontario died because of the negligence of this Deputy Premier and your government.

Premier, I ask you again: How much more proof do you need before you will demand your Deputy Premier’s resignation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, Mr. Speaker, I understand, when a member is given a set of questions to read, that there’s a huge temptation to just read those questions and not actually think about the answers and not actually think about the issue at hand. The fact is, we have worked very hard to restore the confidence of the people of Ontario in the air ambulance service.

This is a very serious issue. I think the member knows full well that we took action when we learned that there were problems at Ornge. We took immediate action to change the leadership, and we have continued by putting in place a piece of legislation that would further increase the oversight of Ornge.

I really believe that the member opposite should pay attention to the changes that have been made—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will withdraw.

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —should pay attention to the changes that have been made. If there are substantive issues around the legislation that he has got a comment on, let’s hear those as opposed to just a mindless recitation of rhetoric that actually doesn’t move the issue forward.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The side comments, we can do without.

New question.

Public services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This government’s austerity budget shows that almost every ministry will be facing average cuts of 6% this year, next year, and the year after that.

Can the Premier tell Ontarians how many people she’s planning to fire?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What’s interesting about this question from the leader of the third party is that we introduced a budget last May, and she then decided that it was time to go to an election. We went to an election. We ran on the budget as a cornerstone of our plan, and so did the leader of the third party. She ran on the same fiscal plan, except she said that she was going to find $600 million more in savings.

The reality is that we are facing a challenging fiscal situation. We understand that. We also know that we have to make investments in infrastructure and in people’s talents and skills. We have to work in partnership with business if our economy is going to grow. That’s the plan we ran on, that’s the plan she ran on and that’s the plan we’re implementing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’ve sent an FOI to the Treasury Board asking who they plan to cut and what services they plan to cut. Instead of giving an answer, they refused to provide anything at all.

So I did ask the Premier a question. I think Ontarians would like to know where she is going to cut. The bottom line is this: Will this Premier be straight with Ontarians about who it is that’s going to be getting a pink slip from this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will just say that this is an interesting question from a number of perspectives. Yesterday, the leader of the third party was on at us about our plan to optimize assets, to actually find a way to make those assets work better for the people of Ontario so that we could make investments in transportation infrastructure that’s needed across the province.

Now, today, she doesn’t want to talk about that because she doesn’t want to talk about where there might be money coming in, in order for us to make the investments that we need. Today she wants to just isolate one piece of our plan which is, yes, to transform our services to make sure that we deliver health care in a way that is the most cost-effective and to the best benefit of the people of Ontario.

So I think she’s trying to have it both ways. It would be good if she looked at the whole plan, which she ran on, which we’re implementing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the Premier’s fairy tale doesn’t wash on this side of the House. She obviously didn’t look at the details of our plan, but that’s fine.

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Whether it’s a dad who relies on a speech therapist for his daughter, or a doctor who relies on a highway being plowed so she can go to work, or an employee who relies on inspectors to make sure their workplace is safe, Ontarians rely on public services. All I would like is for the Premier to come clean with Ontarians about what services she’s going to be cutting.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to reassure the leader of the third party that I did look at the nine-page plan that they put forward. I looked at it very closely. It didn’t take a long time but I did look at it very closely. What I saw was a plan that was based on our plan. It was a plan that made all the assumptions that we made about what this economy needed in order to grow, with the exception, for example, of any investment in the Ring of Fire. There was nothing in the NDP’s plan about the Ring of Fire. There were huge gaps in terms of how they were going to find, for example, $600 million more than we said we needed to find.

So the reality is we are confronting a challenging fiscal situation. We have appointed a President of the Treasury Board to make sure that we look across government and we make the changes that are necessary to preserve services and, at the same time, make government work as efficiently as possible.

Government contracts

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Coincidently, it’s about making government work more efficiently.

A study by experts at the University of Toronto has shown that P3 projects cost on average 16% more than publicly financed projects, but for some reason the Premier said she was proud that a quarter of Ontario’s infrastructure projects were being done with P3s.

Now, can the Premier tell Ontarians why she thinks it’s good to pay 16% more for a quarter of our projects, costing Ontarians more money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I think is good, responsible and absolutely necessary is that government work with the private sector, that we find a way for those kinds of partnerships to bring benefit to the people of Ontario.

The fact is that you look across the globe right now and there is no jurisdiction that is not struggling with how to build infrastructure, including China, where there is a really important move to find ways to co-operate with the private sector in order to get the amount of infrastructure built that they know they need.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we’re working with the private sector, and because we’re working with the private sector, we have dozens of projects across this province that are being built that would not be built otherwise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday the Premier spoke to the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships to pat them on the back and promise to hand them more money.

That same study that I just mentioned caught the attention of media, and one reporter—

Hon. Brad Duguid: You really hate the private sector, don’t you?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: One reporter said, “P3s become vehicles for governments to subsidize inflated profits of powerful and well-connected contractors and financial institutions.”

When the Premier was telling the P3 association just how much she loved P3s, can she tell us whose profits she was actually inflating?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s look at what the alternative financing and procurement model has accomplished here in Ontario. Infrastructure Ontario is currently managing over 80 major AFP infrastructure projects, 37 of which have reached the end of construction. Of these 37 projects, 36, or 97%, were completed under budget, and 27 of them were completed on time. AFP projects, as the member has said, represent approximately 25% of capital investments in the year 2014-15.

The fact is, there are roads and bridges and transit projects that are being built across this province—in Ottawa, in Kitchener-Waterloo, in all parts of the province—that would not be being built if it were not for the partnership with the private sector. The fact is, we have no ideological bent that says we cannot work with the private sector, as they do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When the government signs P3s, they’re helping out powerful and well-connected contractors and financial institutions. That’s the fact. Our own Auditor General has said the exact same thing.

Yesterday, the Premier visited those contractors and financial institutions to tell them what a great job they were doing in charging Ontarians more for something the government can do itself for 16% cheaper.

New Democrats asked the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure to table any evidence—any evidence at all—that P3s made any financial sense, and we got nothing, Speaker, nothing back.

Does the Premier have any evidence at all to justify paying these well-connected contractors and financial institutions a 16% bonus for something that we can do ourselves?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think what’s really important is that the people of Ontario understand that what the leader of the third party is asking is whether we will put the brakes on projects like the mental health facility that is being built at St. Joe’s in Hamilton, whether we will put the brakes on those projects that are benefiting people in all parts of this province. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, we will not put the brakes on those.

We will continue to make responsible investment. This government is investing billions of dollars of public money into these projects. Yes, we are working with the private sector, which is taking risk and delivering these projects on time and on budget. Will we stop that? No, we will not. We know that this building is needed for the economic growth of this province and the well-being of the people of Ontario.

Sexual harassment

Ms. Laurie Scott: Premier, I stand again today to ask you to strike an all-party select committee to study sexual harassment in the workplace. We owe it to the victims of sexual harassment to have this discussion. They need us to better understand the challenges victims face in determining when and how to come forward after an incident, and how institutions can better support and protect victims from further harm.

Premier, will you support this important dialogue by allowing all three parties of the Legislature to work together on a select committee on sexual harassment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Labour is going to want to comment on the supplementary, but I just want to let the member opposite know what I have done in the last 24 hours—and I also know that the select committee issue is going to be discussed by House leaders; they’re going to have that conversation.

I want the member of the opposition to know that I’ve had a conversation with the head of the Ontario public service, and he has already informed me that a comprehensive review is happening of OPS policies on discrimination and harassment and violence. That review is happening. It’s very important, I think, that we understand that that kind of review is critical, that the kind of training that needs to happen on an annual basis is happening within the OPS, within the broader public service and, quite frankly, within our own legislative world. We need to make sure that all of that is in place.

I will continue to do what is necessary. The discussion around what further we may do will take place at the House leaders’ meeting.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I appreciate the Premier’s comments. We have the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy here; it was given to us. All that is well and good, but if the victims are not coming forward or the policies are being ignored, we owe it to the victims to listen and to do better.

I bring up the case, again, of the assistant crown attorney being given a golden handshake of $180,000 by the government. The women were never heard. Clearly, someone in the government had to sign off on that, and did not follow these policies, so the conversation does need to happen. That’s why we asked for the select committee. The work does need to be done.

Again, Premier, we owe it, as a government, to be a good force in people’s lives, and allow the all-party—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Let me thank the member opposite for what is a very, very important question. We all have a role to play in ensuring that violence and harassment in Ontario workplaces is simply not tolerated. It’s something we will not put up with. Everybody in this province, regardless of their gender, should be able to work in a safe and a healthy workplace.

Our government was the very first government in Ontario—this House, in 2009, passed Bill 168. What it does is, it very specifically requires employers in this province to have plans in place to prevent this from happening in the workplace and to deal with it as it happens in the workplace.

What employees need to know, what men and women in this province need to know, is that if they are suffering or they feel that they are suffering violence or harassment in the workplace, they have the right to refuse that work—you stop right now. If you think you are in imminent danger, you contact the police; if you think it’s an ongoing issue you can’t solve, you contact us at the Ministry of Labour.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. You profess to be a progressive politician. You profess to say that you want to govern in a way that’s open and transparent to the people of Ontario. But when we look at your record so far in this majority, you’re doing exactly what Dalton McGuinty did and you are time-allocating everything under the sun.

So I am asking you, as a fellow member of this assembly, why is it that you are choosing not to allow the public to have their say on these very important bills, such as daycare, and not allowing the committees to be able to travel outside of Toronto to hear what they have to say about this very important issue? Why are you like Dalton McGuinty, and why don’t you stop time-allocating?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member from the third party for the question. I think all members in the House recognize that we received a very strong mandate from the people of Ontario on June 12. They have asked us—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to hear.

Please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Ontarians have asked us to move forward with a progressive agenda that was put forward in a budget that was passed in this House, and a platform that really clearly spoke to the priorities of Ontario. They really have asked us to make sure that we stop having the stall tactics and gamesmanship that goes on this House and pass important pieces of legislation that will make Ontarians’ lives better. That’s why we’re making sure that those priority bills that were not passed in the previous Parliament are passed in this session as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Premier, I would prefer that you answer the question, because you stood through the last election, you said you were progressive, you said you were going to govern differently, and you said you were going to engage the public in the decisions that face this Legislature. How can you say that at the same time you’re not allowing people outside of the city to have their say on very important bills?

So I will ask you the question again: Why is it that you’re time allocating at a time when the opposition is not even holding up the legislation? We’ve said to your House leader that we have no interest in slowing this down. All we want to do is give the public an opportunity to have their say. Neither this opposition nor the Conservatives are holding it up. Why are you shutting down the public’s ability to have their say?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We are moving ahead with the progressive agenda of this government. We are moving ahead with bills like Bill 8, enhancing transparency for the public sector and MPPs. We are moving ahead with a bill that ensures we have a fair minimum wage in our province. We are moving ahead with a bill that ensures that we modernize child care so that our children are protected when parents drop them off at child care. And we are doing so in a responsible way.

Let’s just take Bill 10 as an example, the Child Care Modernization Act. There will be hearings that will take place. There will be two days of hearings that will take place, and they will both go late in the evening so that parents and child care providers can have access to those hearings and they are heard.

But at the end of the day, our number one priority is the well-being of Ontarians, especially our children.

Ontario economy

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question today is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, I hear from my constituents in Burlington and from people across our province that growing the economy and job creation is their top priority. They are encouraged that Ontario’s economy is growing faster than the national economy, and they feel secure that our path to balance is as responsible as it is compassionate.

But people continue to read stories, and they are concerned about the lasting effects of the global economic recession. As the world becomes increasingly globalized and new markets continue to emerge, the people of Ontario want to know how our province plans to compete with economies around the world.

Minister, can you please update this House on the steps the government is taking to compete with those emerging economies and how you plan to ensure that Ontario’s economy continues to grow, despite the challenging global economic environment?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the wonderful member from Burlington for her question.

Ontario is indeed operating in a competitive and challenging global environment. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Premier, the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, as well as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade on their successful trade mission to China. Already, this mission has attracted nearly $1 billion to Ontario in new deals and is creating more than 1,800 new jobs.

Our government understands the importance of Ontario being recognized as a globally innovative jurisdiction, and this successful trade mission is just part of our plan to grow our economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Minister, it’s great to hear that our government is continuously working to attract new jobs and investments on behalf of the people of Ontario. It is clear that Ontario is emerging from the global recession with strong fundamentals which will ensure we can continue to provide the programs and services that Ontarians expect and rely on.

As we reflect back on the accomplishments of the government and plan for the future, can the minister tell us more about the efforts our government is making here at home to grow our economy and eliminate the deficit?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you again to the member from Burlington. Our purpose is clear: It is to create opportunity and security for people, to build Ontario up while, at the same time, eliminating the deficit in a responsible and balanced way.

Our prudent path to balance is working. However, global uncertainty still remains. That’s why we have a four-point plan for stimulating the economy, including:

—maintaining a competitive tax environment that encourages business to invest and grow;

—building strategic partnerships with business to stimulate innovation and productivity;

—moving forward with the government’s Going Global trade strategy to tap into emerging markets like China; and

—helping businesses manage electricity and other costs to ensure our prosperity and competitiveness.

In fact, I look forward to updating the House further on our progress and our broader economic plan on November 17, when I table the fall economic statement.

Forest industry

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the town of Fort Frances and area First Nations chartered a plane at great expense to fly 1,800 kilometres to Toronto to try to get your government’s attention. The paper mill has shut down, and if they don’t get some help soon, in a matter of weeks it could be lost forever. Expera, a speciality paper company, was interested in reopening the plant, but they could not get a reasonably priced supply of wood fibre, essential to make the project viable. That price is controlled by the past owners of the mill.

Premier, Expera was willing to invest $100 million to create hundreds of jobs in northwestern Ontario. My question: Will you call the CEO of Expera and do what you can to close a deal that will create jobs and bring investment opportunities to Fort Frances?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. I would start by saying that the community of Fort Frances flew to Toronto with their supportive team for good reason, but I would say to the member that they didn’t have to fly to Toronto to get our attention, because they’ve had our attention on this issue going back weeks ago: When the deal fell apart they had our attention, and since the deal fell apart they’ve continued to have our attention.

I mentioned yesterday in response to several questions that we will continue to work as closely as we can with the community of Fort Frances and with both of the parties to see what is possible. The member knows that at the end of the day this was a B2B arrangement that was trying to be consummated between, hopefully, a willing seller and a willing buyer. To this point the deal has not been consummated; we continue to be in contact with them and work as diligently as we can to see what is possible to try and breathe some life back into that deal.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: I don’t think the Premier heard the question there, and that was that they asked for her to make a phone call to the CEO of Expera. I hope she will do that, though she passed the question on.

Premier, the sustainable forest licence in the Fort Frances area is controlled by the past operator of the paper mill. They’re no longer interested in running the mill but continue to control the crown forest, the Crossroute Forest. Don’t you think the licence to harvest wood, or at a minimum an economic supply of fibre from nearby forests, should go to the company willing to locate operations and reopen the mill in Fort Frances?

Hon. Bill Mauro: To the member’s point—and I said this in response to the similar questions yesterday—last week when the deal fell apart I did reach out to the CEO of Expera, and I talked to him. I talked to the CEO of Expera again just this morning. We are still working within our ministry, within government, to see exactly what is possible, if anything. I had a good conversation with him this morning; there were no commitments made from him back to me, or from me back to him, only for him to be aware that as a government and as a ministry we’re still very interested in seeing something positive for Fort Frances.

The member should also know that it is not with a stroke of a pen that an eSFL is created. In fact, if we were to do it that way there would obviously be impacts for the current flow of that wood fibre to other operations in the province of Ontario. I would think that the member knows that.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It would impact the flow to your riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Hon. Bill Mauro: As a result of that, his suggestion would be that we wouldn’t be consulting with First Nations or with the community or with industry on what that eSFL should look like. That work would not have guaranteed anything. We’re willing to look at all options to breathe life back into this deal, and we continue to do that.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for the 2015 Pan/Parapan Games. The minister needs now to take responsibility for the missed deadlines and the mushrooming budgets of the 2015 Pan/Parapan Games. I’ve asked him about the first few games of the Tiger-Cats season that had to be relocated because the Hamilton stadium was not done when the government said it would be, and it is still—I repeat, still—not done. Now a significant soccer match that would have acted as a test run for the Hamilton stadium Pan Am readiness had to be moved to McMaster.

The minister, as is the Liberal way, didn’t answer these questions, and never has, and now the city of Hamilton is openly concerned that the latest completion date won’t be met, and a member of the local Pan/Parapan Am Committee doesn’t think the completion date will be met. Speaker, does this minister think that the people of this province finally deserve an honest and full answer about the ongoing delays to significant Pan/Parapan Games venues, and the costs?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport and minister responsible for the 2015 Pan/Parapan Am Games.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a

long title. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The member was here in the Legislature, I believe, on Monday when I answered the exact same question in regards to the Hamilton stadium. He knows fully well that this is a $146-million investment into the city of Hamilton. The people of Hamilton are quite excited with this venue. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats are undefeated in the stadium. In fact, if you talk to the people of Hamilton, you will realize that that region alone has brought in the most volunteers out of all of Ontario. So they’re buying into the games. They’ve bought into the fact that they’re going to have a brand new stadium. He is fully aware there’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The bantering back and forth has got to stop.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member knows, Mr. Speaker, that this is the largest investment in infrastructure here in the province of Ontario when it comes to our sport facilities, probably in the history of this province. We’re going to go from a jurisdiction that was doing pretty well to exceptionally well, not only here in Canada but throughout North America.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Thanks for the travelogue, again. The people of Hamilton and the people of Milton, where the cycling velodrome is also not ready and where they also missed a staging test event, deserve better than a smiling, happy minister who says everything is great. No answers are coming from the other side, as usual.

We’re not talking about a peewee hockey game here, Minister. We’re talking about a $260-million-and-rising multi-site international games for the people of Ontario, who could be on the hook for a lot more.

The minister’s reputation is also on the hook. Will he take responsibility for the mess, end the rhetoric, take the lead with his cabinet colleagues, and make sure that these venues are going to be ready on time and on budget? I don’t think they will be. In fact, I know they won’t be.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’ve had three technical briefings on the issue in regards to the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games. We’ve gone through the venues. We’ve gone through the costs. I don’t think the member opposite has showed up to any of those briefings, number 1.

Number 2, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the actual infrastructure projects that we have in operation in Ontario in regards to the Pan and Parapan Am Games—the Scarborough aquatics centre is fully operational. If you go in there, it’s a big hub of activity. It is $43.8 million under budget, number 1. Number 2, the Pan Am/Parapan Am Fields: $2.9 million under budget. The Atos Markham Pan Am/Parapan Am Centre—

Mr. Paul Miller: Talk about the stadium. Talk about the velodrome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s not talk.

Mr. Paul Miller: And I was at the briefings, by the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The simple fact is, this government has made the largest investment into athletic infrastructure in the history of this province. We’re proud of our record. We’re doing this not only for the athletes here today but the athletes in the future. We’re very proud of our record.

Sexual harassment / Harcèlement sexuel

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. Minister, the Premier has just noted that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in Ontario and that we must remain vigilant when it comes to addressing this very serious issue. She told us that whether it is at work or whether it’s at home, women in Ontario have a right to feel safe. I know that this government is committed to taking action and working collectively as we move forward.

Minister, can you please share with us what steps your ministry has taken to ensure that we are safe?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you to the member for Kitchener Centre for this very important and serious question. As we know, the Premier has taken a very active role on this issue. In fact, I want to share with the House that later this evening, the Premier will be delivering opening remarks at the official opening of the HeForShe campaign. This is a movement of over 119,000 men across the world who have committed to take a stand for gender equality. Over 12,200 people in Canada have done the very same thing. I would strongly encourage everyone in this Legislature to join this movement. Initiatives like HeForShe are critical because they raise awareness on this issue.

Mon ministère a pris des actions concrètes pour mettre le point sur la prévention de l’agression sexuelle. Those actions include $15 million for a four-year plan and $3 million for sexual assault centres in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you, Minister. It’s very encouraging to hear about a campaign like HeForShe. I think I speak for the entire caucus when I say that we are very proud of the Premier for taking action on this very serious matter.

Just last week, I had a meeting with some stakeholders at the Waterloo region sexual assault centre. Most of the conversation was about events at the CBC. I tell you, as a former broadcaster, I get it, having witnessed and experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.

Minister, can you please tell us what other policies are in place in the workplace to ensure that we all feel safe at work?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very, very important question. As I said in response to a previous question, we simply do not tolerate violence and harassment in Ontario’s workplaces. It’s that clear: Everybody in this province should be able to work in a workplace that is both safe and healthy.

To answer the question specifically, what we did in 2009, as a government, was make amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Bill 168. What that said is that all employers in this province have to have workplace violence and workplace harassment policies in place, and they also have to have programs that implement those policies in a serious way. There’s a variety of information that we can provide from the Ministry of Labour if there’s any employer out there that’s watching today that wants to do better, that thinks that he or she wants to review those policies.

We also give the right to refuse work. Anybody who feels they’re under duress in this regard should simply refuse to do the job and contact the police or contact us.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, Shane Burt is a 21-year-old man with spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy who, due to his age, has been told he is no longer allowed to attend school.

In a matter of months, he has gone from having access to a walker, a stander, a bike, lifts, an exercise table, and an integrated computer system allowing him to communicate in a school setting, to having none of those things now. His family explains that no programming exists for his type of disability in the entire region, outside of a school setting.

Minister, the all-party Select Committee on Developmental Services released its final report in July. The 46th recommendation was for the inter-ministerial committee to work with families and community agencies to develop more day programming tailored to a wider range of needs.

Will you commit to providing day programming to meet the needs of Shane Burt?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for the question. Certainly, I cannot comment on any specific case, but I can say in general that we on this side of the House took the select committee’s report extremely seriously. I did say in my ministerial statement, in some detail, that we were looking very closely at all 46 recommendations in that report. Certainly, we’ll be taking the advice very, very seriously.

In terms of individuals transitioning specifically from one situation, an educational situation in particular, and moving through to adulthood, this is an area that I’ve asked my parliamentary assistant to focus on in terms of ensuring that these types of transitions are as smooth as possible and that a plan is in place at the earliest date possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Minister: The Burt family explains that no programming is available in our area, and we have been in contact with your ministry, but I would be happy to provide you with Shane’s particulars again.

As the family describes, Shane is like a six-month-old baby who understands everything. He can’t walk and he can’t talk, but when the proper programming is in place, he thrives. At school, he learned to float and roll over in a pool by himself. He helped serve food and dusted furniture at the local Brick store with his classmates. He had daily exercise and interaction with his peers.

The Burts want Shane back in school until programming in the community is available, and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable suggestion. In fact, a regulation under

section 16 of the Education Act states: “The committee may recommend that an exceptional pupil who is 21 years of age or older remain in a secondary day school program.”

My question is simple: Will you undertake to ensure that everything is done to see if Shane can’t stay in the secondary program that he was thriving in?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, this is precisely the type of situation that caused us to invest some $810 million over three years, particularly into this sector. I do recall that the two opposition parties voted against that budget, which is most unfortunate.

I do want to reassure the member opposite that in September 2014 my ministry, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Education implemented integrated transition planning for young people with developmental disabilities who are preparing for adulthood.

I’m very open to hearing more about this particular case, but this is precisely the work that we are committed to doing. We took the good advice of the select committee in this regard, and we will be moving forward.

Forest industry

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Natural Resources: Minister, I believe first and foremost that the forest in the Rainy River district should serve to create jobs in the Rainy River district, as it has for the better part of 100 years.

Now the people in this town are left watching as their livelihood is being trucked away. I believe that the Crossroute Forest should be providing fibre to the local Fort Frances mill so that we can create 1,000 jobs and so that 1,000 people can pay their bills, but the minister seems content with the status quo.

My question is: Minister, is the reason why you’re refusing to resolve this situation in Fort Frances because the wood is going to your riding to be processed instead of staying in Fort Frances?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask for order, and then I’m going to make an observation that we have to be very careful in the House when we make comments that are coming close. I’ll only offer a warning that impugning motive is not what we do in this place.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: But I still think you’re right.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I wasn’t looking at you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It doesn’t matter if you’re looking at me or not. That includes anyone who wants to add anything else.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Bill Mauro: A week ago, I asked my staff, “Who do you think will ask this question?” I predicted it would be the NDP, so I was right.

This kind of question is so predictable from that particular party, and I will demonstrate to you by way of example for the member opposite why she is so misplaced in—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m still standing. And the Minister of Agriculture, come to order as well.

Carry on.

Hon. Bill Mauro: In 2011, three months before the provincial election, a mill in my riding, in Atikokan, called the Sapawe mill, that was owned by Buchanan, had 640,000 cubic metres of wood attached to it. Three months before a provincial election, our government took that wood away from the mill in my riding. Very shortly after that, that mill was torn down. Do you know where that wood went? It went to Fort Frances—the Resolute mill owned in Fort Frances. How did you feel about the flow of wood at that time? Were you standing up and—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will withdraw.

Hon. David Zimmer: I withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. At this time I will also remind you once again: In this place we raise the level of debate.

Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I will tell the minister who the NDP is. We are the party in this Parliament that is standing up for the people of this province. It is your government that is making this mess. The people of Fort Frances are keen to work, and they are feeling angry and betrayed by your government’s unwillingness to act. One thousand jobs will have a major impact on our community. Sustainably managing the Crossroute Forest in order to create jobs at the Fort Frances mill would bring stability and prosperity back to the northwest.

In fact, in 2011 New Democrats proposed changes to the wood tenure system that would ensure that when a mill closes its doors, the wood allocations would revert back to the local community. Right now, the minister seems content with the status quo that is only benefiting his community, the community that he represents, instead of listening to the priorities of the people who live in the area where the wood is being harvested.

My question to the minister: Does this sound like good