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

May 26, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-May-26 (PDF)

L087A - Tue 26 May 2015 / Mar 26 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 May 2015 Mardi 26 mai 2015

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Introduction of Visitors

Annual report, Information and Privacy Commissioner

Legislative pages

Visitors

Contempt of Parliament

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Justice system

Teachers’ labour disputes

Youth employment

Special education

Ontario Energy Board

Government regulations

Employment supports

Public transit

Correctional facilities

Environmental protection

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les régimes de pension agréés collectifs

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mike Toth

Mining fatality

Nelson Mandela

Holodomor

Police carding practices

Burlington’s Best Awards

The Pitt

Hemochromatosis

Holodomor

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Act, 2015

Weiche Estates Inc Act, 2015

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Hydro rates

Teachers’ labour disputes

Terry Fox Day

Landfill

Privatization of public assets

Employment standards

Personal support workers

Ontario Disability Support Program

Student safety

Air quality

Privatization of public assets

Credit unions

Taxation

Orders of the Day

Protecting the School Year Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection de l’année scolaire

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 25, 2015, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to enhance public health by enacting the Healthy Menu Choices Act, 2015 and the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015 and by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à améliorer la santé publique par l’édiction de la Loi de 2015 pour des choix santé dans les menus et de la Loi de 2015 sur les cigarettes électroniques et la modification de la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Good morning. I am pleased to rise in the Legislature and speak this morning on an important bill and on an important topic, and that today is Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act.

My colleague from Nickel Belt has worked extensively and been a voice through the years on these issues, and it is satisfying to see much of her commitment and passion reflected in this legislation.

This is a solid bill, but it could have been stronger, and though the Liberals didn’t commit to adopting amendments that would have strengthened this legislation, we hope they will still engage in the debate and work to include them in the future as we are talking about the health and wellness of our kids, families and communities.

Let’s look at this bill. It’s essentially three schedules.

Schedule 1 enacts the Healthy Menu Choices Act.

Schedule 2 includes amendments to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Schedule 3 enacts the Electronic Cigarettes Act.

We support Bill 45 to help protect the health of families and young people across our communities. We supported the 17 amendments that my colleague France Gélinas from Nickel Belt proposed, and we are disappointed that the Liberals ignored 16 of them. The government missed clear opportunities to not just make healthier choices but to make a stronger healthier choices act.

Mr. Speaker, let’s break this down, shall we?

Schedule 1 enacts the Healthy Menu Choices Act, which will require calorie labelling for all food and drink items at food service premises with 20 or more locations in Ontario. Think of chain restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores and movie theatres. The basic point is that calorie labelling in chain restaurants can help families make informed decisions.

Let’s look at the journey that this idea has taken. New Democrats have been pushing the government to take action on this issue for years. Our NDP health critic, France Gélinas, has been talking about this for a long time and has actually introduced at least 11 private member’s bills on menu labelling and stricter tobacco control measures. I couldn’t tell you why it hasn’t been a government priority until now.

In fact, they could have passed a bill requiring menu labelling six years ago when MPP Gélinas’s Bill 156, Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act, 2009, was introduced in March 2009 and would have required menu labelling in chain restaurants. However, despite the super slow process, it’s good to see the Liberals finally recognize that these measures are the right thing to do.

In

schedule 1,

section 2, owners and operators are required to display the number of calories in each food or drink item, including combos, offered for sale, as well as any additional information required by regulations. The government says that this requirement will impact approximately 11,500 restaurant locations, 15 grocery store chains, 14 convenience store chains and two movie theatre chains in Ontario.

A few interesting thoughts go along with this: Why did the government stop short of making a healthier choice? Why didn’t they include sodium labelling? MPP Gélinas proposed an amendment to mandate sodium labelling on menus, which makes sense considering the bill mandates calorie labelling. Many of the presenters at committee spoke about the need for sodium labelling, which clearly the Liberals don’t agree with.

Something else that doesn’t make a lick of sense:

Section 5 renders municipal bylaws on caloric or nutritional information inoperative. Why are the Liberals removing the right of municipalities to create bylaws—at the discretion of the municipalities—regarding calorie and nutritional information for any food service premises, not just those with more than 20 locations in the province?

Here’s another question: Why isn’t the Liberal government requiring regulated food service premises to list the recommended daily caloric intake for children, youth and adults on their menus and menu boards, as recommended by Ontario’s Healthy Kids Panel and the Healthy Kids Strategy?

I’m struck every time the government decides it knows best rather than the experts or authorities from the field or the industry. I think it’s ridiculous to ignore recommendations from those who are qualified to make them. Here we see more short-sighted examples. If we are mandating calorie labelling, then let’s look at sodium labelling. If the government is decidedly refusing to take suggestions from the opposition parties, perhaps they could have at least committed to reviewing data and consulting on the topic as a way to make healthier choices, but alas.

Another proposed amendment was to establish a committee to review whether sodium information should be displayed and requiring that recommendations be received by January 1, 2017—another amendment that made sense: forward-thinking, healthful sense. But since it was put forward by someone from the opposition, this government put its head in the sand while shoving its fingers in its ears—just another day in the Liberal majority.

However, it isn’t healthy to dwell on the negative, so we will discuss the importance of giving families more information. Families and people across the province have the right to know what they are consuming. Especially in this day and age of chemicals, carcinogens and toxic levels of sugar and sodium in our foods, every additional piece of information about what we are eating and feeding our families is helpful. People think they can judge what they are eating, but they have no way of knowing how something is prepared or the absurd amounts of additives.

When we choose to eat at restaurants, we are trading healthful home cooking for convenience or experience. We shouldn’t have to select menu items blindly, however.

According to the Ontario Medical Association, 82% of respondents support providing calorie information on fast-food menus to help tackle the increasing rate of childhood obesity. According to Toronto Public Health, at least 78% of survey respondents said they would use nutritional information “at least sometimes” if it were available, and a University of Toronto study found that 83% of Toronto consumers would like to see nutritional information when dining out.

However, even if you never read the menu to refer to calories, the industry has to stay competitive. It will make changes, and the average consumer will benefit. Positive changes will help everyone to benefit. Even if that individual never refers to the calorie information themselves, they will, over time, have healthier choices to choose from, as restaurants will modify their menus over time, just to stay competitive.

I would like to bring up something, however, as a caution when it comes to this government and quick fixes. Calorie information is important and recommended and, I would say, necessary for the public to make more informed, healthful decisions. But it isn’t the only piece to the puzzle. As my colleague from Nickel Belt has been pushing for, sodium is a damaging piece to the puzzle. If the government’s lack of interest in broadening our health scope when it comes to other nutritional information is any indication, this is going to be a steep road to improvement ahead. But we shall endeavour anyway.

So let’s talk about sugar. Sugar is toxic—full stop. I appreciate sugars as much as the next person, but I’ve learned along the way about different types of sugars, and, arguably more important, the glycemic index of foods. I’m not suggesting that the government start immediately labelling the glycemic index of all foods in restaurants, but I think it is important, if we’re talking about health and unhealthy trends in our society, to start doing some real work in this area.

We talk a lot about obesity, but we need to be talking about diabetes and the increasing number of childhood diabetics. The strain on our future health care system as more and more people are becoming diabetic is and will become immense. But let’s just focus on the epidemic facing our children and our families. This government absolutely must take on sugar and glycemic awareness and find a way to educate our families—another issue, Mr. Speaker, that won’t be solved by calorie labeling alone.

Again, we talk a lot about obesity, and there’s a lot to talk about. I’m not minimizing the need to address that. But because often we don’t see eating disorders when we look around, we don’t address them. Calorie counting is one tool, but it isn’t the cure-all. In fact, if this government at any point decides to teach calorie counting only in our schools, they would be doing significant harm. I would wager that students in intermediate grades and high school who are struggling with eating disorders at least rival the number struggling with obesity.

Teaching children how to restrict calories without teaching them about proper nutrition, without teaching them about what is in their foods—vitamins, minerals, proteins, amino acids, healthy fats etc.—only gives them the tools to hurt and not to help. So we have to look at the whole picture when it comes to health, especially when it comes to our children. We have to look at their pressures, environments and realities, not just what we remember from our own.

To recap: Calorie labelling is appropriate and important as part of a strategy to encourage people to make healthier choices. The government should be including sodium, and eventually sugar, on its hit list. Especially when it comes to our children and a healthier future, the strategy should be a holistic one of education and information about the nutrient content of foods, not just calories. When it comes to our kids, it shouldn’t be all about weight and waistline, it should be about health and wellness.

Health and wellness: Let’s switch gears and look at

schedule 2 of this bill.

Schedule 2 includes amendments to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act which will prohibit the sale of flavoured tobacco products while allowing the government to make exemptions by regulation. Unfortunately, the government has confirmed that menthol will be exempted from this ban for at least two years, which is quite unfortunate, but I’ll come back to that.

Schedule 2 would prohibit the sale of promotional items with tobacco products, and increase the fines and penalties for individuals and corporations that contravene some sections of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Mr. Speaker, tougher restrictions on smoking, including a ban on flavoured tobacco products, will help discourage young people from smoking. So let’s talk about smoking and our youth. I remember when my dad used to smoke. He used to say it was really, really easy to quit because he did it all the time, sometimes once a day. But I remember that it wasn’t until mid-elementary school, when we had a really enthusiastic Stop Smoking campaign on at school—it might have been a Butt Out campaign or something along those lines. We watched a video and I understood that my dad was probably going to die, and I started to cry at school when I realized, being maybe in grade 2 or so.

When dad got home that night, we had a talk. A very pointed talk, I might add; you should imagine me in grade 2. And then I took his pack of cigarettes and floated them in the toilet. Looking back, my father was probably furious, but really what could he say? I don’t know if that was his turning point, but it was mine. I was relentless after that. Then he started on nicotine gum as a cessation aid. I can still recognize the smell of nicotine gum on someone who’s mid-quit, and I applaud anyone in that process. My father, 25 or 30 years later, now can’t believe that he ever did anything so damaging, and, touch wood, he is still healthy.

Cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, if used the way that they are designed, if used the way that they are intended to be used, have a 50% mortality rate; so if used properly and smoked fully and regularly, 50% of users will die. That is astounding. So consider kids: It’s estimated that 90,000 new kids will start smoking and become the next generation of smokers. So let’s do the math: 45,000 are going to grow up and die because of smoking. We need to start protecting our children—not start; we need to continue protecting our children.

We all grew up seeing Joe Camel. He was cool. All the girl camels loved him. He rode motorcycles. He played pool. And he had at least a full-page ad in every teen magazine that I used to read. And I remember Virginia Slims. They had great ads for teenage girls, as I recall.

Well, when I was doing a Google search to see the current candy-flavoured, super-cute tobacco packages for kids, I came across a great Joe Camel ad. Only, it had been redone to be Joe Chemo. He wasn’t on the beach anymore. He was walking with an IV pole through the halls of an overcrowded hospital full of other sickly Joe Chemos.

It would be interesting to do a “where are they now?” feature on the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel and Virginia Slim. I’m pretty sure that we’d find they had all died slowly and wishing they had made healthier choices.

Who remembers Big League Chew shredded bubble gum?

Mr. Todd Smith: Love it.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Well, that was packaged and marketed like baseball players’ chewing tobacco.

Who remembers Popeye cigarettes? I remember when they had the red tips on the ends and I remember when they were called Popeye cigarettes. Then I remember when they were rebranded and became Popeye candy sticks. They were all-white; there were no red tips. But we weren’t fooled. They were still delicious and the best fake-smoking, pretend grown-up candy that there was.

I personally never liked the black licorice pipes, but there they were on the counter for 10 cents or 15 cents or whatever.

That was candy back then, designed to get us thinking and goal-setting about how we could grow up to smoke.

Let me tell you a bit about kids’ candy today, which I’ve seen a lot of in our schools. Candy comes in really cute, bright containers. Candy comes in Push Pops with plastic twist-up tubes, and in reusable plastic cases, cans, boxes and bags. Candy now looks like cellphones, jewellery, iPods, lipstick and toys—the brighter, bolder and bigger packaging, the better.

Parents recognize a canister of Bubble Tape gum. Parents recognize hard candy Push Pops. Parents recognize a pack of gum. Parents recognize tear packs of random candy. But the problem is that parents don’t recognize snuff, which is sold in candy colours and flavours like cherry pop in a little tube just like a Push Pop. Parents don’t recognize chewing tobacco in a brightly coloured Bubble Tape canister. They don’t recognize strawberry cigarillos in a gum package. They don’t recognize tear packs of white grape-, peach-, sour apple-, coconut-, watermelon-, mango-, strawberry-, chocolate- or licorice-flavoured cigarillos.

Also, think of those little breath strips in the little plastic snap cases that you can tuck in your pocket or your purse. They sell dissolvable tobacco strips in the exact same packaging.

So are we better understanding the concern here?

Well, there’s another concern. This government has given the industry two years to maximize their future casualties by giving them two years to maximize menthol targeting. Imagine the possibilities. Big Tobacco likely has their two-year mint line ready to go: chocolate mint, orange mint, strawberry mint, maybe even mojito mint. Why is this government giving Big Tobacco two years to get their hooks into our kids?

I would also like to challenge us to not only be vigilant but to be smart. When we ban flavoured cigarettes, they develop lines of cigarillos. If we ban tobacco, they’ll pick some other random toxic plant to light on fire and sell to our communities. So let’s pay attention, please. Big Tobacco is not going to give up the game or their profits just because we are passing a law. Big Tobacco and nicotine pushers are crafty. Enter e-cigarettes.

Schedule 3 enacts the Electronic Cigarettes Act, which will prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to youth under age 19, prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes in certain places and restrict the display and promotion of e-cigarettes and prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed workplaces, enclosed public places and other locations where smoking is already prohibited.

I remember when people used to smoke in restaurants and bars. I remember thinking that having a smoking or non-smoking

section in a restaurant was strange when the smoke just drifted over into the non-smoking section. I remember being out at nightclubs during university—not that often, though, Mr. Speaker; I see judgment there—choking on others’ smoking. And then I remember coming back to school after the summer, when there was a new bylaw that smoking was prohibited inside. It was amazing. I could see my friends again. My clothes weren’t disgusting. I wasn’t chronically coughing throughout the semester.

Recently, I had a throwback moment when I was in a restaurant, sitting beside a friend of a friend, who was sucking on some strange contraption. She said it was vaping. I don’t care if I get in trouble for saying this, but it was such a pretentious, ridiculous thing to see for the first time—and to see a grown-up pretending to be a sophisticated grown-up was really absurd. That’s how I saw it. I recognize that others see it differently.

Then I came to find out that this vaping wasn’t regulated and that she and others don’t even know what they’re sucking into their lungs. It was like watching some kid you knew in school start smoking when the rest of us knew that it was a really bad idea. So here we have a whole new trend and a new audience—a novelty without the background information. We’re hearing from those who don’t want them banned because of their potential as a cessation aid. Okay, but they still need to be regulated.

Also, making them light up or blink, making them flavoured and candy-coloured makes them enticing to kids, and that’s not okay. I think most of us in this room hate seeing our children targeted by anyone who would do them harm. So I applaud regulation of this new trend. Kids don’t need to be smoking or vaping or huffing or sniffing or snorting or anything else that involves them breathing something foreign into their precious, growing systems. Once our kids are better protected, I think that we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

To wrap this up, we support Bill 45. We wish the government would have supported the important amendments suggested to make it even stronger and better. We all want to see healthier and happier communities, and I hope that this bill is a step towards that ideal. Thank you again to my colleague from Nickel Belt for her tireless commitment to the best health for the most Ontarians. It is time that we prioritize health and wellness in a tangible, active way. I appreciate the time today to speak on this bill.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It really is a delight for me to once again speak on this bill, and it gives me great pleasure since I had the opportunity to lead the bill through the process in committee. My colleague from Oshawa has encouraged us to pay attention, and I think that that’s absolutely very wise advice. She says that with regard to menu labelling—as you know, this legislation is going to have menu labelling and a calorie count on menus and menu boards in restaurants with 20 or more facilities.

But our member from Oshawa says that we’re not going to be looking at the glycemic index right away, and that’s absolutely correct. But I think that what we need to focus on in that comment is that this legislation is flexible and we will be able to make changes in regulation, and we will certainly look at the possibility of looking at sodium—salt—in the future.

The other thing that I wanted to point out is that the member opposite has said that menthol is exempt for at least two years, but it’s not “at least” two years; it’s “up to” two years. These are details that I think are extremely important, and again I would suggest that this is a very flexible and well-rounded bill that will certainly look at all of the options in the future.

We do need to do what we can to be supportive for Ontarians to have the best possible health. This is a bill that is very proactive, and I am looking forward to seeing it passing.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I did listen intently to the member from Oshawa’s comments, and I applaud her for her efforts when she was just a child to come home and to speak to her dad. I think that it would be wonderful if parents felt comfortable speaking to their children about all of these life choices, because too often we just make too many assumptions.

I think that we have to also be cognizant of peoples’ individual rights in the province. We want to attract tourists to our province, we want to be a hub of entertainment in the province, so we have to keep that in balance with the fact that we do have a publicly funded health care system. When people are smoking and drinking, and drinking and driving, this can result in expenses that the taxpayers have to incur. We have to find that right balance and the fact is that, as the member from Oshawa mentioned, industry always finds that wiggle space whenever we come out with new government regulations.

So it’s not really enough to just focus on the regulations. We have to focus on the public, on how to encourage all of our friends and neighbours and all of our constituents to enjoy life to the fullest while making healthy choices as much as possible, while also recognizing that people want to have some individual rights and people want to be enjoying the great outdoors, not necessarily as smokers, but the people who are experiencing the second-hand smoke—I think still, to this day, too many people find it hard to believe how irritating their smoking is to the non-smokers around them.

So I applaud everybody who is joining in today on the discussion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from—okay, you got in just in the nick of time. I recognize the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have to say I really enjoyed the speech and the comments from the member from Oshawa. I think one of the first things I have to do is also acknowledge the efforts of our member from Nickel Belt, who was integral in ensuring that this bill came forward through her years of advocacy around what I would call food literacy, in fact. That’s going to be the topic of my minute and a half in terms of my comments.

What we need to encourage, broadly speaking, is that people need to be aware of what is in the food they eat. This could start absolutely in our education system with youth. The idea is that the more we know about what we’re consuming in terms of the calories, the nutritional value, the more we can be aware of the impacts it will have on our health.

Looking at the health care system in Ontario and looking at the health care system in Canada, what we see is rising costs, and that’s the trend. But that rising cost can be challenged because many of the illnesses that we suffer from are preventable. Prevention is an area that we haven’t really put enough effort into. It’s an area that will pay back in terms of return on investment in high, high value. It’s something that we really need to focus on.

One of the areas of prevention is nutrition and how we eat and what we eat. The other area is how we can encourage people to be more active. While this bill is absolutely important, there are things that could have been improved. I loved the line that the member from Oshawa mentioned, that the government could have made a healthier choice by including more amendments that would have made this bill, this Making Healthier Choices Act, stronger. I would have loved to have seen some of those amendments.

In general, the next area of health prevention is encouraging physical activity. We need to look at strategies where we can encourage physical activity, make it easier, make it more accessible. Often we find that if we make the healthier choice the easier choice, more people will make that choice.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s a great pleasure to make a comment on this very interesting bill, which is really a compilation of three or four bills, some brought by members on the other side.

Some people say, “You should have included sodium count.” Some people say, “Include sugar count.” Some people say, “Include a series of things.” Gluten: A lot of people in Chatham-Kent, I’m sure, are worried about gluten nowadays. You hear everybody say, “The solution to everything: Eat quinoa and kale. You’re safe: Eat quinoa and kale.”

It’s kind of difficult for people writing the legislation, the researchers and the people in the ministry, to try and figure out: What is the optimal level of action we can take in this bill? In the bill—and I sat through many of the committee hearings—it’s really wide-ranging. It ranges from control of e-cigarettes—not allowing it for young people under 18—and then you’ve got the calorie counts in restaurants. But it’s an attempt by government to try and direct people’s behaviour towards healthier outcomes. This is by no means a silver bullet, a perfect bill, because you can’t control what people eat or how they behave totally. This is just an attempt.

As they say—Mr. Speaker, you’ll be glad to hear this—sitting is the new smoking. So maybe we should do something to get people to stand more and not to sit so much, because the average Ontarian sits for eight hours a day and that contributes to obesity and poor health. We have to do something about sitting so much too. Thank you, and I’ll sit down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oshawa for final comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would like to thank my colleagues from Kingston and the Islands, Thornhill, Bramalea–Gore–Malton and Eglinton–Lawrence for their thoughtful comments this morning.

To further the comments made by the member from Kingston and the Islands, she corrected me and said that menthol is exempt for up to two years. Okay. But as she said, it’s a flexible and well-rounded bill. I’m hoping that is something they opt not to enforce, that we don’t exempt menthol for two years. As we said, there’s an entire product line waiting to be launched.

To the member from Thornhill, I appreciate that she appreciated my youthful passion for my father’s health and those around me, and I think that really does come back to the importance of discussing healthy lifestyles in school. There were so many anti smoking campaigns year after year when I was a student, and that really did help to form the basis of my understanding of what good health was and to make healthier choices—usually—for myself.

But as she pointed out, if we give the industry wiggle room, they will take it, and they will do damaging things. Back to my earlier point, I think that we need to not just be vigilant but we need to be smart, because, as I said, they’re crafty.

To the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, bringing it back to that education piece: food literacy and starting to focus on our youth and giving them the right information, giving them a full, holistic picture of health, teaching them about what they’re eating and what’s in the food that’s good for them, not just focusing on what’s bad for them.

As the member from Eglinton–Lawrence said, you can’t control what people eat entirely. But I would say that our next big challenge should be to take a look at focused, targeted advertising that’s directed at our kids for them to make poor choices when it comes to food. I think that’s maybe the next direction that we should go.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to speak to this bill this morning, and it’s particularly an honour to have Chris Yaccato with us from the Ontario Lung Association, who has been a strong advocate on this issue and also a great friend.

This bill before us contains three pieces of proposed legislation. I had a chance to speak to this bill last night, I think it was around 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. last night. I really appreciated the comments made on all sides that—

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s past your bedtime

Mr. Yvan Baker: It was past my bedtime.

It was a pleasure to have a chance to join the debate and consider the comments that have been made by all sides. I know a lot of comments have been made over a longer period of time on this particular bill.

Like I said, the bill contains three pieces of proposed legislation. While each

schedule of this bill is distinct, all of them are predicated on the idea that if you eat better, exercise more and smoke less, up to 90% of type 2 diabetes, 80% of coronary heart disease and a third of all cancers can be avoided.

Last night, when I debated the bill—and I know a number of the members who are here were there last night—I spoke to my personal experience. I spoke about my mother and how careful she was as to what we ate as children. She obviously made it clear that we shouldn’t smoke. My mom had been a smoker when she was young and quit and made sure we never smoked. She made sure that we exercised; we participated in a lot of physical activity. She made sure we ate healthy. To me, that’s in part why this bill resonates so much with me, and I know it resonates with a lot of members on both sides of the aisle.

I would like to first provide a little context on Bill 45. This bill was originally introduced in February, 2014, but died on the order paper when the election was called last June. The bill was reintroduced in November, 2014. At second reading, Bill 45 had 11 hours of debate and, by my count, approximately 65 members had the opportunity to speak to it at that stage. The bill then was passed unanimously by all three parties at second reading. At the committee stage, there was considerable public input and rigorous debate; we had three days of public consultations with 38 presenters appearing before the committee. There were also two committee days of clause-by-clause examination and debate.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe that prevention is better than the cure, so it’s in that context that we’ve introduced this bill. We can help ensure that Ontarians have the information they need to make better choices about staying healthy. I think about the comments from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. He was just commenting on how this allows people to make better choices. We’re not changing people’s behaviour, but we’re giving them the information they need to make appropriate decisions or better decisions. We can also help to protect Ontarians, especially the youngest among us, from dangers to their health and their well-being.

This legislation is looking to ban flavored tobacco products, including menthol. Flavoured tobacco products have proved to be a gateway to tobacco use and addiction for our young people. When I think about why we’re here, I think about why I’m here. I’m here to help improve the quality of life for the people of Ontario today, but also in the years and for the generations to come. Protecting our young people from something that is dangerous is truly important, and so I think this bill helps to do that.

In 2012-13, the Canadian Youth Smoking Survey found that one in four high school students who reported smoking have smoked menthol cigarettes in the past 30 days. And recent research in Ontario shows that menthol’s cooling effect can reduce the harsh taste of tobacco, making it more tolerable for new smokers and making youth more likely to become habitual smokers—precisely what we’re trying to avoid, precisely what we’re trying to protect our young people from.

This piece of legislation also deals with menu labelling, and I had a chance it speak to that last night. We know that menu labels at the point of purchase have been shown to increase awareness of nutritional information and directly influence the choices that people make. They influence consumer behaviour. Again, we can’t change the way people behave, but we can give them information to make the informed choices. If passed, this legislation would require the posting of calories on menus and menu boards.

And it will raise public awareness about calorie content of foods eaten outside the home—I know that the member from Oshawa spoke about that in her remarks just a few minutes ago—making it easier for people to make healthier choices when dining out, and encourage industry to offer healthier items and reformulate high-calorie menu items.

If you think about what this is going to do, with calories posted on a menu, industry will have to think about what they’re putting on their menu, the calorie content and how they may want to change or adapt their menus accordingly, to make sure people are healthier, to adapt to those healthier choices.

We’ve seen that happen in the food industry over the course of the last few decades, in particular, to more positive health outcomes and healthier foods on shelves and in stores. I think that’s something that we all strive for and want to achieve.

Finally, this legislation proposes to regulate the sale and the promotion of e-cigarettes. Look, I understand that e-cigarettes are an emerging trend in Ontario. There is concern about the possible health effects of e-cigarette use, particularly on our young people, as well as the implications for tobacco use prevention and cessation.

When it comes to the health effects of e-cigarettes for good or for ill, the jury is still out. That’s just the reality. In the meantime, the idea behind this bill is to take a precautionary approach, and with our proposed e-cigarette legislation we’re trying to protect youth and Ontarians from what may be an emerging harm.

Now, when I think about why I’m here in the Legislature, why I ran for office, why we all ran for office—when I talk to members on both sides of the aisle, the response I hear most often from folks, and certainly what I tell people when they ask me in my community of Etobicoke Centre as to why I ran for office, is because I came here to make a difference. I came here to impact the lives of the people of Ontario, people in my community in particular. I know we all feel that way. That’s why we’re here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a difference, and as you know, this bill, I think, will make a difference. But as you know, we introduced this piece of legislation in November 2014. We allowed the debate to continue when we reached six and a half hours of debate on this bill so more members could speak to the bill and share their views. We’ve heard some excellent views and some excellent feedback from both sides of the aisle. Combined with second and third readings, this bill has seen 17 hours of debate and, according to my count, which may be off by a few members, about 77 members have either spoken to the bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments.

I believe there has been considerable debate on this bill, and we’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. My personal belief is that it’s time that this bill be put to a vote on third reading and proclaimed into law as soon as possible. All sides support this bill, and there’s a lot of work that we want to do. I want to make a difference. We all want to make a difference, and to do that, there are a lot of pieces of legislation that I know we all, on both sides, want to get to and debate so that we can make that difference for our constituents and for the people of Ontario.

If we do this, if we can pass this bill and move on to the next piece of legislation to be debated here in the House, we can move on to a number of really, really substantive matters. I know that a lot of them touch all our communities. They certainly touch my community of Etobicoke Centre. There are a number of pieces of important legislation already introduced which—I know on this side and, I’m sure, on the other side—we would love to debate and move through the legislative process. Just a few examples:

—Bill 9, Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act;

—Bill 31, the keeping Ontario’s roads safe act;

—Bill 37, Invasive Species Act;

—Bill 40, Agriculture Insurance Act;

—Bill 49, Ontario Immigration Act;

—Bill 52, Protection of Public Participation Act;

—Bill 66, Great Lakes Protection Act;

—Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act;

—Bill 80, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act;

—Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act;

—Bill 103, Protecting the School Year Act.

I’d like to get to those bills as soon as we possibly can. I think we’d all like to spend some time debating some of those important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we really can’t until Bill 45 is dealt with. And so, as a result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Baker has moved that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Thank you. This vote will be deferred until after question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I called for the point of order before the vote was taken. I do not believe that the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I cannot accept your point of order. The vote has, in fact, been taken and we have, in fact, deemed that a deferred vote will take place following question period.

Orders of the day. I recognize the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr. John Yakabuski: This used to be a democracy.

Mr. Mike Colle: He’s challenging the chair.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m challenging this group over there. I’m challenging you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order. I will not take that as a direct attack or a comment toward the Speaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not to you, sir; not to you in any way, shape or form.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Now that we have order resumed, back to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on orders of the day.

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 25, 2015, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte (Ontario) et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s an honour to be able to stand in the House to talk about agriculture on behalf of my constituents in Timiskaming–Cochrane and many of my farmer friends throughout the province.

Actually, it’s a good segue into this bill because the Making Healthier Choices Act, on which debate was just closed, is talking about making healthier choices. The way to have the ability to make healthier choices is to be able to buy good Ontario food. One of the ways to ensure that good Ontario food is available is to make sure that the producers who grow that food have the ability to be protected by insurance programs, and that’s what this bill basically talks about.

Some of you will recall that this is my 15-minute closure on my hour lead-in. The take-away message from yesterday from the hour lead-in, for those not involved in the agricultural sector, is: If you’re thinking about having barbecues this summer, the time to buy your beef is now.

Interjection: Oh, is it?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Why is that?

Mr. John Vanthof: Because after years of punishingly low prices, the beef industry has rebounded, and producers needed it. But once that expensive beef gets through the system, you’re going to see huge sticker shock for beef in the stores. It’s starting, but this is just the start.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m a vegetarian.

Mr. John Vanthof: My colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton is not worried about that sticker shock, Speaker, because he’s a vegetarian. More power to him. But for those of us who really do enjoy a good cut of beef, as I do, if it comes on sale, this is the time to buy it.

That was the take-away message from my last 45 minutes for the people at home.

This is an important bill. It’s an enabling piece of legislation. But I’d like to make it very clear that by itself, this bill makes no difference to any producer. I believe now there are 90 crops that can be covered under a provincially mandated insurance program. This bill has the potential to increase those numbers, not only of crops but of other agriculture commodities, like livestock. This bill allows the negotiations to begin. But the bill by itself doesn’t do that.

This bill in Ontario has been a long, long, long time coming. Crop insurance—or agricultural product insurance is I believe what this bill is dealing with now, Bill 40. This concept that it should cover a wider variety of agricultural production was agreed to at a federal-provincial agriculture minister conference in 2003, Mr. Speaker. Every other province in the country has moved ahead already; in fact, many have programs.

I can distinctly remember when this bill was brought to the Legislature. Some of the members on the government side were moving with lightning speed. Well, 2003 to 2015 is not lightning speed. That could suggest that there are some management issues in how this government organizes the bill process. I think we’re seeing this now in these last two weeks. They seem to be complaining that they can’t get their bills through, but instead of focusing on the bills that they really want to get passed, they keep pushing more on top of the pile. Some of these bills were introduced last week—the week before last.

Last week was constituency week, so the week before last. On the farm, we try to get some jobs done before we put more jobs on the list. This government doesn’t seem to be focused on that.

But I digress, Speaker. In my last few minutes, I’d like to focus on possibly the most important part of the process for the development of this bill, and that’s committee hearings. We did have people come to present regarding this bill. We had a day of committee hearings in Toronto, which is kind of par for the course for this government; they like to have committee hearings in Toronto. For an agricultural bill, it makes absolutely no sense to have committee meetings only in Toronto. Actually, the committee held a day in Guelph, which makes more sense.

Committee hearings are probably the most important part, certainly one of the most important parts, of developing legislation. The people who present at committee actually deal with the industries on a day-to-day basis.

I’d like to go through a few of the presenters and what their main points were. They were very valid points.

The first presenter in Toronto was Amy Cronin. She’s the chair of Ontario Pork. Amy and her family know a lot about pork, about the hog sector. They have a 3,500 sow farrow-to-finish operation. For those of you who are not familiar with that terminology, that’s a substantial farm. Those who are not familiar with agriculture would maybe term that as a factory farm. Well, it’s not; it’s a family farm. Family farms in modern commercial agriculture need to be big enough so the family can afford a standard of living equivalent to any other business person. That’s why farms are getting bigger.

Amy was very well spoken regarding her industry, and she was in favour of this bill. One of the things that Amy brought forward, which I didn’t know, is that the hog industry—and hopefully I get this terminology right—across Canada has been looking at this because in some places they have these programs, and they’re quite far along in this process. They’ve got a national hog mortality insurance task team looking at this because we’re talking about big numbers, and they’re looking at actual numbers with actuaries who are looking at how this insurance program would work.

What I got from that is that they’re past the conceptual part and they’re going to need to know numbers, because part of this bill, part of agricultural product insurance, is that the producer pays 40%, the province pays 26% and the federal government pays 34%. I believe the administration costs are half and half. But anyway, for the majority, that’s the way it goes. So if the province is going to put forward a program to insure the hog sector, which is very important and would be very beneficial to the hog sector, that 26% of provincial money is going to have to come from somewhere.

The hog sector is fairly far along in this program, so they would need to know where that 26% is going to come from. That was a point that kept coming through over and over with the presenters, and there’s a reason.

I’d like to go to the last presenter, who was Scott Persall from the Grain Farmers of Ontario. The Grain Farmers of Ontario are already covered because their commodities are covered by the current regime, and they will continue to be covered. But they’re worried—not that they begrudge the other commodity sectors; not at all—that if the government doesn’t come up with some new money and they try to simply rob Peter to pay Paul and dilute other programs, it will be a net loss to the other commodities.

This could very well happen, because there’s another program—agriculture is a very complicated sector, and the government programs that work within that sector are very complicated. I could list the whole group of them. A very important one is the Risk Management Program. With risk management, you can manage price volatility, because agriculture is very cyclical. Remember when I talked how now is the time to buy beef? In the last 10 years, the beef sector, because of BSE, was devastated, and they should have had some kind of program in the last 10 years. But it’s very cyclical.

They created commodity groups, and the provincial government came together and put forward a risk management program. It’s a very good program. Originally, it didn’t have a cap, so a farmer could insure himself with the government and you could take that to the bank. One of the great things about that program was that it was bankable and predictable, until the government put a cap on it. It was calculated that the program, in the worst-case scenario, in the worst years, would take $200 million, and they put a cap at $100 million. That program no longer became bankable and predictable. It’s still a good program. It’s not the program that was originally envisioned.

The program works because this year it’s predicted that it won’t even use the full amount of money. Actually, if you look in the budget that was proposed, one of the major savings that the government is trumpeting is the fact that they are predicting putting much less money into agriculture programs, which, to a farmer, isn’t good news—but also to a government that rightfully trumpets the importance of agriculture, because agriculture is number one or two in the province for creating jobs. A lot of people wouldn’t know, Speaker, that 760,000 jobs rely on agriculture in this province.

But for that sector to be stable, the farmers have to have good programs. So the Risk Management Program was a good program until the government capped it. It was a great program; now it’s an okay program, but it’s not the program that it was.

Where I’m leading to is that with this agricultural insurance program, which basically insures you against weather and against disease, if you would like to participate, since they capped the risk management, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t simply take that money out of another agricultural program to help fund an insurance program for the pork sector or an insurance program for the beef sector.

We were talking last night, as we were debating among ourselves during the real debate in night sittings, that the government could conceivably try to close Ridgetown College to take some money to create a new agriculture insurance program. Or they could cut out half of Guelph.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Don’t suggest it.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m not trying to suggest it; I’m trying to put it on the table so people know what could happen. That’s not the intent of this and it shouldn’t be, but there has been no money attached. In the budget, it says we’re going to spend a lot less money on agricultural programs.

So here we’re talking about increasing agricultural programs, which should be done. Other provinces have done it. The pork sector should be covered. The beef sector should be covered. There are all kinds of sectors that should be covered, and there seems to be no money.

Another issue that hasn’t been brought up yet—we brought it up at committee, and I brought it up in the technical briefings. I’d like to thank the ministry for providing us technical briefings. I brought up supply management, and right away they said, “No, no, supply management isn’t covered because supply management is a whole different system.” I said, “Whoa, wait a second. Supply management is an income program.” It’s the best marketing and management program, bar none, in this country.

That’s why we have stable prices for milk and poultry products in this country, and that’s why we can guarantee what’s in the milk in this country, because the milk consumed in this country is produced in this country with very high standards and very high regulations.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: You were a dairy farmer?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

An example: We recently had avian flu where farmers lost their whole cycle. So their poultry flock is wiped out because of avian flu. That’s not covered by supply management.

So once again, will they be allowed to negotiate with the government to create a program for supply-managed sectors? The answer we got right away was a no. But I’d like to ask the Ministry of Agriculture and the minister to really think that through, because supply management—if you have a dairy herd that’s wiped out with—it used to be that we’d have a whole herd wiped out from brucellosis. We’ve eradicated brucellosis because if brucellosis was detected in a dairy cow—boom—your herd was gone.

They had ad hoc programs to try and help the farmer, but again, if the dairy industry would like to negotiate an insurance program to ensure against calamity, which that is—catastrophe or disease—they should be allowed to do so. It shouldn’t be a flat no because you’re supply managed. So far, all I’ve heard from the technical people at OMAF is it’s a flat no because it’s supply managed. Your income is already regulated. Your daily income might be regulated if you produce your quota but that doesn’t insure you against catastrophe.

So in closing, we are in favour of Bill 40. Bill 40 is enabling legislation that allows commodity groups to negotiate with the government to create individual commodity insurance programs to insure against disease and weather, because farmers have to deal with that on a daily basis. There was a frost this spring, and I saw on the news this morning that it wiped out a lot of grapes. So it might not be a great time for Ontario wine in the next little while.

It wiped out a lot of crops. It wiped out crops indiscriminately. In my area we had frost. Some crops that should have been frozen didn’t freeze, and other crops that are relatively frost-hardy froze.

In closing, this is enabling legislation, legislation we’re in favour of, but, as always, the devil is in the details. There used to be a Wendy’s commercial—“Where’s the beef?” Well, the question for this program is, “Where’s the money going to come from? Where is the money?” In your budget this year, you are specifically saying there is less money for agricultural programs, so where’s the money coming from for this one?

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

Mr. Han Dong: I’m very pleased to respond to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s point of view on this particular bill. I was listening carefully to what he had to say and I realized that I just wanted to, for the record, point out that in my riding, which is an urban riding—downtown Toronto—this bill is also very important to the residents, because farmers feed the cities.

We eat, and in my riding, just so you know, there are a lot of newly established farmers’ markets. Whether it’s CityPlace—now they have a permanent farmers’ market throughout the summer—or Liberty Village, there are farmers’ markets. It’s a very trendy thing to do now because people’s demand for raw food is on the increase.

I know the beef farmers will be here this week. I look forward to that. It’s always a great feast. It’s very kind and very smart of them to actually come to Queen’s Park and advocate on behalf of their members. I look forward to that. Every year I get great conversations out of that.

This bill, if passed, will give some more tools, more coverage and more protection for our farmers. That’s what we need because we’re in a time that’s not looking at just feeding Ontarians; our product has a good reputation around the world. It’s in high demand around the world. Our Minister of Agriculture just recently joined a delegation led by the Minister of International Trade to China. From that trip they promoted the Ontario agricultural sector and they closed a lot of deals, they signed a lot of agreements. I look forward to that.

I appreciate the member’s comments and I look forward to his support. I’ll be supporting this bill personally.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane made some very interesting points this morning with respect to the crop insurance legislation, Bill 40. I think it’s important to point out that the government, unfortunately, is routinely using closure motions and, in some cases, time allocation to shut down debate.

When you think about our agri-food industry in the province of Ontario, I think that farming and agriculture has to be the most important economic activity in the province. We all need to eat; we all love to eat.

We need to spend more time debating and discussing agricultural issues. Of course, as we know, on the opposition side of the House we represent rural Ontario in the Ontario Legislature and the government side of the House represents, largely, urban Ontario. We have lots to say about these issues, but unfortunately, when the government uses time allocation, or in the case of Bill 40 at second reading, when they move a closure motion to curtail debate, we don’t all get a chance to speak.

I think it’s important also to point out that we have something very exciting happening in Wellington county this week. We are opening a new dairy facility in the community of Elora. I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to be joining us in the celebration. The provincial government has invested a significant amount of money in what we’re calling the new Livestock Research and Innovation Centre dairy facility. It’s a partnership with the University of Guelph. The federal government is also putting in some $3 million.

It will ensure that the Ontario dairy industry will have a state-of-the-art, world-class dairy research facility to be built to address the research, education, training needs and priorities of Ontario and Canadian dairy sectors. I said to my friend the member for Oxford that this really makes Wellington county the centre of the universe when it comes to milk production in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I hesitate to start a war in the Legislature with my colleague, but I think manifestly that it is true that the research and development that will take place in this community will show what Wellington county can do. We really look forward to this exciting event this coming Thursday.

I want to again congratulate the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for his presentation this morning.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to be able to rise in the Legislature and make comments on the comments from my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I’m always struck when I really look around this room and recognize the diverse backgrounds and talents and stories that we draw from in this room. Certainly, to have a farmer speaking about farming and about the agricultural industry, we are all richer for it.

Some of his points, that if the government doesn’t come up with new money but rather if it moves or shifts money from one bucket to the other, we’re not getting any further ahead—I think that’s a huge question that needs to be addressed. As my colleague pointed out, the government is trumpeting agriculture on the one hand, and the importance of it, but then pats itself on the back that it is putting less money into agriculture with the other hand. I wouldn’t say that is the way to grow.

In Oshawa, as the member across the way was talking about, there are some communities that may not have farms, per se, but they benefit from the farmers’ markets, and in Oshawa I’m surrounded by Durham region and many farms in the area, and we, of course, have vibrant farmers’ markets.

We spent time this morning talking about making healthier choices, and I think that these two topics are connected because as we’re encouraging our communities to eat healthier, I think we also need to be having the “buy local” conversation—not just about supporting the local economy or supporting our local friends and farmers but really looking at why local food is better for you: that it ripens on the vine, it ripens on the tree and it doesn’t just ripen in a box in the back of a truck; that we let food grow the way it’s supposed to just up the road, we buy it locally and we’re all that much healthier for it.

I thank you very much for having the opportunity today, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today and speak about the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014. I also want to commend the other members for the comments that they made earlier.

In my riding of Halton, we have a number of different types of growers. Of course we have crop growers, fruit growers and all kinds of specialty crops and so on, but we also have people who are livestock owners and growers, and people would have bee farms. So I can’t tell you how important business risk management programs like production insurance are for the producers in my riding. This really helps them all deal with situations that are outside of their control.

As we all know, the weather lately has been very unpredictable and people are dealing with all kinds of sudden and dramatic changes in the weather that really we haven’t had in past years. In addition to that, there’s of course disease and extreme market fluctuation. What this insurance does, really, is make timely payments to producers and eliminates the need for costly, ad hoc responses to some of these adverse conditions.

Essentially, what we’re saying is that we shouldn’t be in a situation where we’re managing things with crisis management. People need a plan. They need to know that they are going to have something there that will help them in times of need. That’s exactly what this is, because our producers, our grain growers, our fruit growers, our livestock growers, they all need that peace of mind as they’re planning for the years ahead.

We know that many of these people have lots of challenges on a daily basis as it is with their daily lives, so making it easier for them allows them to better manage risk, encourages greater innovation, job creation and, really, growth in the sector. It helps them plan for the future so that we can make sure that our agri-business is as strong as it should be in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for final comments.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the members from Trinity–Spadina, Wellington–Halton Hills, Oshawa and Halton for their thoughtful comments. The basic issue with this bill is that it’s enabling legislation—by itself, it doesn’t change anything. There are good insurance programs for crops currently. There are good risk management programs available for crops and other livestock sectors. This bill would allow commodity sectors that aren’t currently covered by production insurance to negotiate with the government to try to come up with insurance programs for commodities like beef and pork that are not covered now. That’s good.

The member from Halton said that producers need to be able to plan. That’s very true. But what producers also need to know is where the government is going to come up with their portion of the money, the 26%. Producers know where 40% of the program cost is going to come from. That comes from the producer. That’s the producer’s part of the insurance. But the 26% that comes from the province—there is no mention of where that’s going to come from. That will come later in negotiations. But there has been no indication from the government where that money is going to come from. It certainly wasn’t indicated in the budget.

The fear of the producers—the ones who are now covered by the programs that already exist—is that if new programs are developed, money will simply be shifted from other agricultural programs, which in effect could be a net loss to producers.

Do we support this legislation? Yes. But the devil is in the details. Where is the money going to come from?

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank all members for the debate this morning.

Since it is almost 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce a good friend of mine, John Cruickshank, from Grimsby, father of Duncan Cruickshank, one of our pages today.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to introduce Star Jewell Martin; she’s a page here at the Legislative Assembly. Her grandmother, Gaydonna Baker, is visiting. Our page Star is from Kenora–Rainy River.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m pleased to welcome to the House today the family of today’s page captain, Emma Wai: Evelyn Wai, Tsang Wing Wai, Trevor Wai and David Wai. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome, once again, the father of one of our pages, Bridget Le Donne. Her dad, Dino Le Donne, is here with us again.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I also have a page from my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan here this week, also a page captain today: Emma Schubert. Her mother, Andrea Schubert, is here in one of the galleries. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Paul Kossta, from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, also a frequent visitor; someone who is watching what’s going on in the benches.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s my pleasure to introduce, in the east gallery, a former MPP, former minister of the province of Ontario and currently the mayor of the city of Ottawa, Jim Watson, here for Ottawa Day at Queen’s Park, headed up by Invest Ottawa. I’d also like to introduce Bruce Lazenby, president and CEO of Invest Ottawa, and the entire delegation of business people from the city of Ottawa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to welcome Shena Terry, who is here visiting her daughter, Jessica Terry, a page from Parry Sound–Muskoka. Welcome, Shena.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure we’ve noticed that another member of the assembly—you’re going to do it? All right. I’m going to sit down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Davenport.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature this morning a group of seniors who are visiting from the Abrigo Centre, a fantastic organization in my riding of Davenport. I’d like to especially welcome Marilia dos Santos and Gerry Luciano, who are leading this group today. Welcome, seniors.

Applause.

M me France Gélinas: Merci—Jérémie Spadafora et Caroline Gélineault—pas « Gélinas »—de la FESFO; et, bien sûr, Alain Dupuis du RÉFO. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: As part of Invest Ottawa day at the Legislature, j’aimerais présenter M. Dina Epale, executive director of the Orléans Chamber of Commerce; and a constituent of mine, Ian Faris, who also happens to be the executive director of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m going to invoke a loophole today in recognizing a former member of this assembly indirectly. I’m pleased to say that Brayden Sterling is the page from Nepean–Carleton this year. His grandfather, of course, is known, but I’m only allowed to introduce his lovely wife, Joan. It’s really nice to see you here, and I will not usurp the powers of the Speaker.

And the best lawyer in Ottawa: Grant Jameson, with Norton Rose, who is a constituent of mine.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like the assembly to recognize John Cruickshank, who is in the gallery today, and his son, who’s here as a page: Duncan.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, as you’ve heard, there is a great delegation from Ottawa that is visiting Queen’s Park. Today, I want to welcome Peter Ricketts, Saad Bashir, Warren Creates, Jeff Westeinde, Don Grant, Leopold Lax, Noel Buckley, Kathryn Moore, Ryan Kennery, Ian Faris, Doug Wotherspoon, Tofy Mussivand and Steve West. I welcome them to Queen’s Park and encourage everybody to come to the reception tonight in the Legislative dining room.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature Rajiv Kaushal from First Derivatives. Thank you so much. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I just want to introduce some stakeholders: Cristin Napier, Nadia Formigoni, Nicole McInerney, Sara Trotta, Kalasian Kalaichelvan, Rubina Kharel, Chris Yaccato, Monica Sarkar, Gemma Styling and Stephanie Lear. They’re here from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario Lung Association. They’re here to support us on Bill 45.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, as I mentioned, we’ve got a really big delegation visiting from Ottawa, so I want to introduce a few more people and welcome them to Queen’s Park: Ritch Dusome, Blair Patacairk, Sonya Shorey, Maria Pugh, Jonathan Bartlett and Richard Chase. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure and honour to welcome my good friend Professor Mussivand, the inventor of the artificial heart from the University of Ottawa, visiting the House.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I forgot to name a dear friend, Don Grant. We have been friends—I was there working in the delivery room when his two sons were born, so welcome, Don, to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Last call for introductions: the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’m asking for unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice respecting the speedy passage of the bill that was introduced yesterday that would ensure that schoolchildren are back in school tomorrow—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That particular motion, unless I am informed of any other issues that are changeable in its result—I’ve ruled on it twice. This will be the last time.

There’s a request to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Even though it was stepped on, I would like to introduce, as is the tradition of the Speaker, former members: The member from Ottawa West–Nepean in the 38th and 39th Parliament, Mr. Jim Wilson—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Jim Watson.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You guys are only giving me enough time to think about my comeback. See how soon we forget?

My apologies, Jim.

Also, respecting the member from Nepean–Carleton’s respect for the fact that I was allowed to introduce, we have with us the member for Carleton–Grenville in the 31st, 32nd and 33rd Parliaments, the member from Carleton in the 34th, 35th and 36th Parliaments, the member from Lanark–Carleton in the 37th and 38th Parliaments, and the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills in the 39th Parliament, Mr. Norm Sterling.

I hope you noted that I got your name right.

Annual report, Information and Privacy Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2014 annual report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this time I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the new pages for this session and ask them to assemble: Vaughan, Mr.

Ram Ahuja; Niagara West–Glanbrook, Duncan Cruickshank; Nickel Belt, Abby Deschene; Ottawa–Orléans, Robert Heckbert; Trinity–Spadina, Julien Jouan; Hamilton Mountain, Bridget Le Donne; Nipissing, Sheila MacDougall; Kenora–Rainy River, Star Jewell Martin; Toronto–Danforth, Madeleine Randmaa; Timmins–James Bay, Jany Scherer; Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Emma Schubert; London West, Maya Scott; Scarborough–Agincourt, Philip Shen; Nepean–Carleton, Brady Sterling; Mississauga–Streetsville, Megan Sweetman; Parry Sound–Muskoka, Jessica Terry; Willowdale, Emma Wai; Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Dale Whitmore; Sault Ste.

Marie, Katelyn Woods; Etobicoke Centre, Luke Woolcock; and Mississauga East–Cooksville, Kerry Zheng.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finally, I would like to introduce, in the Speaker’s gallery, two friends of mine, one a very long-term friend and a trustee from the Brant Norfolk Haldimand Catholic District School Board, Mr. Bill Chopp; and the chairman of the board, Mr. Rick Petrella. Welcome.

Contempt of Parliament

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have received notice of an intent to raise a point of privilege from the member from Leeds–Grenville. I am prepared to hear the point of privilege at this time. However, since the notice is quite detailed, I would ask the member to summarize his argument.

The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present, pursuant to standing order 21(c), the notice and my intent to now present a point of privilege. It’s concerning a possible breach of privilege with regard to the Ombudsman’s report released yesterday, entitled In The Dark, and Hydro One’s actions when questioned regarding their billing practices.

Speaker, misleading the House is a charge that I don’t make lightly, and I take the likelihood that Hydro One may have intentionally misled the House very seriously. I am concerned that the behaviour shown by Hydro One, as documented in the Ombudsman’s report, could amount to contempt of this Legislature.

Parliamentary authorities are unanimous about the House being misled and state that the House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as contempt. Deliberately misleading the House is an affront to every single member of this House, no matter whether they’re in government or in the two opposition parties.

I will try to summarize my brief. First, I wanted to talk about McGee’s Parliamentary Practice. It states, “In order to establish a prima facie case finding that a breach of privilege and contempt has occurred, three elements must be present: One, it must be proven that the statements were misleading; two, it must be established that the member at the time knew the statement was incorrect; and three, in the making of the statement, the minister intended to mislead the House.” I am confident, Speaker, that all three elements are present in this case that I’m bringing on the floor this morning.

Regarding McGee’s first criterion, that it must be proven that the statements were misleading, the Ombudsman’s report made it clear that the statements and actions of Hydro One were misleading. While specifically misleading statements were made by several officials at Hydro One, it was truly, in my opinion, a systematic response to all issues designed with an intent to mislead.

You’ll note that on page 6, I outlined four specific points from the Ombudsman’s report, passages where we became aware of the systematic issue, the fact that statements were made to the Ombudsman’s staff to the contrary, and the fact that these staff were encouraged and directed to do so. Again, I’ve outlined the four points to you on page 6 regarding the CEO’s response. While he remained positive, as in the report, an internal email from other senior officials in December referred to the company entering into crisis mode.

All of the four points that I made, Speaker, were misleading. An internal email communication from July 2013 discussed accounts that have not been billed under the new system, noting the need for “ensuring we do not go to the media” and that “senior executives undertook to raise the issue with the board’s” regulatory and other public policy bodies. I’ve outlined that on page 6.

The second criterion that I believe is satisfied is that Hydro One knew the statements were incorrect, and I’ll reiterate some from passages that were in that report. The one thing that I do want to highlight is that on December 18, six months after Hydro became aware of the serious nature of the issue, Hydro One’s CEO responded to an inquiry from the Minister of Energy’s office and gave the impression that the issue was minimal, stressing the “low number of customers who had submitted complaints.” I’ve outlined how this has satisfied that second criterion.

The final criterion is also satisfied in this case, that the statement must have been made with the intention to mislead the House. While the statements were not made in the House or in committee, they were made to mislead the minister’s office, which was relaying that misleading information to this House and members of the Legislative Assembly.

Hydro One was being questioned by the Ombudsman, who was acting upon 180 requests from members who were advocating on behalf of our constituents. The House, its members and our independent officer of the Legislature—we were all looking for accurate and honest information to do our jobs, to represent our constituents and to help them, many of whom were most in need, our vulnerable residents. We were trying to get answers, and we were being blocked, deceived, at every step.

I want to remind you and members of the House that the CEO made misleading statements to the minister’s office when he knew they were in crisis mode. In particular, I want to highlight an exchange between a staffer and his or her supervisor when they discussed “holding the line with messages” after a call from the Ombudsman and to report back if they “get the feeling that” the Ombudsman was “going to investigate more aggressively or escalate….”

I would like to again mention a statement from an internal Hydro One email: “I know corporate communications does not recommend responding to these types of articles, but this one may need us to do something to repair damage to our reputation.”

Speaker, these responses clearly confirm that third section.

O’Brien and Bosc note, “Misleading a minister or a member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.” They cite a specific example where Speaker Jerome made a ruling in which he said, “I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.”

I believe that the statements made by Hydro One officials to the minister, to members of this House and to the Ombudsman can only be interpreted as an attempt to deliberately obstruct us and those officers from carrying on their duties.

I’m going to wrap up by quoting from page 8 of my response. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated, “The privileges of a member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions.”

By misleading the Minister of Energy—the ability to fulfill his duties was seriously impeded.

Once again, I respectfully request that you consider my point of privilege, the ruling precedents and the facts that are presented by the Ombudsman’s report. I believe that you’ll find a prima facie case of breach of privilege and contempt. I would ask that you consider it and, if your ruling is favourable, that the House investigate the matter further.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I rise to respond to the point of privilege raised by the member from Leeds–Grenville today. We received his submission, I believe, around 9 a.m. this morning.

Speaker, as the member himself mentioned earlier, in order to establish that the House has been misled, Speakers’ rulings are clear that three tests must be met:

(1) The statement was misleading;

(2) It must be established that the person making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect;

(3) In making the statement, there was an intention to mislead the House.

Speaker, in this case, it is difficult to even address this point of privilege, because the member has not demonstrated any instance when statements were made to the House that could have been misleading.

There is absolutely no evidence that this House or a member of this House has been misled in the discharge of their duty.

Indeed, the process that the member complains of occurred wholly outside this House.

I understand that members of this House filed a complaint with the Ombudsman and that the Ombudsman, in his official capacity, investigated as a result of those complaints.

In any event, the CEO of Hydro One, Carm Marcello, addressed this issue in the media yesterday. He accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and went on to say, “Last year I wrote to my 1.3 million Hydro One customers and I told them I was sorry. I wrote to them and explained that the poor service they experienced was not warranted. I wrote to every one of my customers, including the 95% who have never experienced a problem. In that time we fixed our billing issues. We focused on fixing technical issues but we had failed to appreciate how those issues would impact our customers.”

Speaker, he advised that Hydro One provides regular updates to their board of directors and management team and that they provided all the updates to all of the agencies, including the ministry.

Additionally, I understand that the Minister of Energy has asked the chair of Hydro One to report back publicly within 40 business days with an action plan to ensure that all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in this report are acted on.

It is abundantly clear that there was no breach of privilege or contempt in this case. As a result, I request that you dismiss the member’s point of privilege. In the event that you do not rule today, Speaker, I request that you provide us time to submit detailed written submissions to you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member from Leeds–Grenville and the House leader for their input. I will reserve my ruling and get back to the House shortly.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m still here. I thought maybe you talked to Patrick Brown and knew something I didn’t know this morning.

My question is for the Premier. The day after this government introduced back-to-work legislation for members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has now announced it is ramping up its work-to-rule campaign.

Elementary teachers will not write transition reports or participate in transition meetings for grade 8 students, they will not plan future field trips and they will not participate in professional development. This is just the next step before a full-blown strike.

Premier, will you guarantee the parents of elementary school students that they won’t see province-wide strikes this September in their sector?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite is making a huge leap. The fact is that there is a collective bargaining process that is under way and we need to let that unfold, and I know that the Minister of Education will want to comment.

I believe in the collective bargaining process. That’s a fundamental difference between us and the party opposite. We actually believe that it’s important to have a process in place and it’s important to follow that process. There will be times when it works better than others, I acknowledge that, but that does not negate the importance of having a process that is respectful, in which everyone has a role and everyone understands what that role is, and that’s what is in place in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the Premier: This government has failed in negotiations with Durham, it has failed in negotiations with Rainbow in Sudbury, and failed in negotiations with Peel. The Premier and the education minister couldn’t keep students in the classroom all because of a pathetic, cumbersome Bill 122 bargaining system.

Premier, these boards are just three of the 72 boards we have in Ontario. Parents and students could see this chaos and disruption spread one board at a time across the province because of this Liberal government’s dysfunctional bargaining process. Our young leader Patrick Brown and the PC caucus know that Bill 103 is simply a band-aid solution.

Premier, how—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: He will be sitting right over there in 2018. Premier, how many more back-to-work bills will you have to introduce over the coming months?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just speak to the process, because I said that it’s important to have a process in place that everyone understands. The fact is that we worked with our partners, with the teachers’ federations, with the unions—so teachers and support staff—and we worked with boards to put in place a process that reflects the reality that the provincial government is the funder of publicly funded education in Ontario, and there are issues that have to be resolved at a provincial table. It also reflects the reality that there are local issues that need to be bargained locally.

A number of years ago, when I was Minister of Education, there was an informal process that kind of reflected the reality that actually was a result of funding changes that had been made by the previous government. Those funding changes are in place. The province funds education, so that means you have to have a collective bargaining process that reflects that reality. That’s what is in place.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Premier, it’s a cumbersome mess you have on your hands. The three boards on strike this school year are just the beginning. Your government’s mismanagement and flawed two-tier system have created education chaos for parents and students. You have dithered and dragged along the negotiations, meanwhile using the students as pawns.

Premier, Bill 122 is definitely the problem; the boards have said so, the teachers have said so. The Education Relations Commission said as much in yesterday’s letter as well. Don’t just bring in back-to-work legislation, bring in a fix to your flawed bargaining process so we don’t see this disaster happen again and again and again across this province.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, the process that is in place reflects the reality that the province is the funder of the education system, and that there are local issues nonetheless that need to be addressed at the local level. But there is a provincial discussion that has to happen.

You know, we have built into this process a review, so when we go through this round of bargaining, if there are changes that need to be made to the process, we will look at that. But the fact is that there has to be a process that reflects the reality. I don’t believe that there shouldn’t be a discussion at the local level, because I believe in school boards. I think it’s important to have school boards working with their employees. At the same time, I don’t believe that school boards should have to take the full responsibility for negotiating the financial issues that the province is actually responsible for.

If the members opposite had a suggestion that was constructive, we’d be happy to listen to that once this round is through.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: The current Minister of Energy has held the hydro file for just over two years now. In that short amount of time, he has succeeded in having the Auditor General tell him that the government wasted $1.1 billion on the gas plants relocations, another $2 billion on smart meters, and now the Ombudsman has revealed that because of the minister’s lack of action he has spent another $88.3 million of taxpayers’ money in an attempt to correct poor billing practices at Hydro One.

Added together, this almost $4 billion in wasted money is only a few million shy of what this government is claiming it will net from the sale of Hydro One. My question to the Premier is, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to sell Hydro One just to make up for the mistakes of your incompetent minister?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will not accept interjections when I’m standing.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The question is precipitated by the Ombudsman’s report yesterday. We have indicated that as a result of the new IT billing system, an unacceptable number of Hydro One customers over an extended period of time received an unacceptable level of service. The CEO of Hydro One and the government have apologized for the impact. While we know that Hydro One has been working hard to resolve outstanding issues and Hydro One has outlined that work in detail, further work and remediation is clearly required.

I therefore asked the chair of Hydro One, David Denison, to report back to me within 40 days with a detailed action plan describing how Hydro One can further address the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report. I’ll provide more details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: Not only did Hydro One waste millions of dollars, but their incompetent and callous actions have led to countless headaches and quite frankly unnecessary anxiety for ratepayers across this province. Ordinary residents had money incorrectly taken from their bank accounts, while businesses were being overcharged millions of dollars. Yet with all of that systemic waste and lost money in the energy file, you’re telling Ontarians that Hydro One no longer needs the oversight of the officers of this Legislature. You pushing through your budget bill will remove that oversight.

Premier, will you reverse your decision and remove any reference to Hydro One from your budget bill?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Hydro One is transforming from a crown corporation to a TSX public company. That will require changes. The legislation includes a provision that requires Hydro One to establish an ombudsman—an embedded ombudsman. What we have done is we have engaged, and he is engaged at this time, the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, to oversee the embedding of that ombudsman in Hydro One to ensure and assure the public and the members of this House that the ombudsman will be accountable and will be transparent and will be meaningful going forward.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier; maybe she’d like to answer this: Ontarians don’t trust your government and they don’t trust your energy minister.

Without the investigations of the officers of the Legislature, none of this waste, abuse and deceit would have ever seen the light of day. The public has no confidence that Hydro One can govern itself in the best interests of the ratepayers of this province without the oversight and the accountability that these legislative officers bring to bear.

Premier, you need to seriously reconsider your plan to privatize Hydro One. Why won’t you remove any reference to Hydro One from your budget bill?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Don’t forget Harris.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, the members know that in last year’s budget, we indicated we were going to study all of our enterprise assets, to repurpose them for infrastructure purposes. What we are doing now is taking 50% of the proceeds of sale and putting it on debt, and approximately 50% to invest in infrastructure.

This morning, the Premier was in Hamilton announcing a billion dollars of infrastructure for an LRT project. That is going to come from the proceeds of sale which are not coming from increased taxes, which are not coming from cutting services, nor are they coming from new debt. It’s a responsible way to move forward, and this morning—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: This morning, the members of Invest Ottawa asked for more infrastructure. It’s a priority everywhere in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Slowly catching up, I wanted to make sure that the member heard me. I said to come to order, and the member from Nipissing, come to order.

New question.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Negotiations with high school teachers began months ago, and for months the Minister of Education has been sitting on the sidelines. She’s watched as talks stalled, and instead of doing anything, she was “perplexed” and “confused.”

On Thursday, we expect the Premier to legislate teachers back to work, but she’s still going to have the same minister who failed to bring people together, the same minister who failed to get a deal, the same minister who failed to get our kids back into the classrooms.

Will the Premier fire her minister and show that she’s serious about getting a deal and ending the chaos in our education system?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party understands the collective bargaining process. I know that she understands that it would be impossible for her to know exactly what the minister has been doing. The minister has been working extremely hard to keep everyone at the table, to keep the issues moving and to try to get a deal. That’s as it should be, because that’s where the deal has to be found, is at the table.

The point we’re at right now is that the Education Relations Commission, which has been in place for many decades, has ruled on jeopardy of the year for the students who have been out of school. What is surprising to me is that the leader of the third party doesn’t understand that the interests of the students are at stake right now. We have been part of a collective bargaining process. That process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That collective bargaining process will continue, but we must get the students back into school. I would have thought that the NDP would have wanted that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, on Thursday—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am not sure that anyone wants to take that chance when I’m standing.

Supplementary, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On Thursday we expect the Premier to legislate teachers back to work, but the problems will not go away. The minister has blamed teachers. She’s blamed boards of education—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Trinity–Spadina and the Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She’s blamed teachers, she’s blamed boards of education, and these days she’s blaming the opposition. The truth is that, for months, this minister has watched from the sidelines and just passed the buck. She was given a job: Get a deal. She hasn’t done that.

If the minister can’t get the job done, then it’s time for a new minister. So will the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport—and I just might jump to warnings. This is insulting.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the minister can’t get the job done, it’s time for a new minister. Will this Premier do the right thing, fire her Minister of Education and appoint someone who can actually do the job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the students who have been out for a number of weeks could be back in school today had the NDP worked with us.

I know that this is a difficult round of collective bargaining. I understand that. I understand that the collective bargaining process has to go on and that the deal is going to be found at the table. I understand that it’s obviously going to take a bit more time. That doesn’t mean nothing has been happening; it has been. It’s going to take a bit more time. But in the interim, what’s important is that we get the kids back into the classroom. That collective bargaining process can go on.

But the leader of the third party, in the past, has been part of a party that has supported getting workers back to work. Howard Hampton stated in 2002, “The government has done a wise thing here. Four days of debate, five days of debate, six days of debate would not have left anyone in a winning position.” They voted to end the garbage strike—

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The only real solution to the chaos in the education sector is to actually bring people together. So far, this minister has only been pushing people away. She’s perplexed by the issues. She blames everyone but herself. Her job was actually to get a deal, but she has failed at that spectacularly. It’s the students, the parents and the teachers who are all paying the price.

The Premier needs to show that she’s serious about a solution. She needs to fire her Minister of Education and appoint a minister who can actually bring people together and get a deal done. Is the Premier ready to get serious, or is she going to stand by her perplexed, confused and ineffective minister?

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I don’t actually think that personal attacks get us anywhere.

I really believe that the people who are engaged in the collective bargaining process need to do their work. I believe that, and they’re going to need a bit more time. In the interim, students in Oshawa, in Bramalea and in Nickel Belt could be in school today if the NDP had supported our back-to-work legislation in the first instance.

The fact is, the collective bargaining process is going—

Interjections.

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

One sentence wrap-up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to say, Mr. Speaker, that we want those kids back in school. We want the collective bargaining process to continue.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the truth hurts, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier likes to say that she respects municipalities, but the proof is in the pudding. The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association says that northern communities are going to be hit hard by the Premier’s Hydro One sell-off. Their president says, “There has been no consultation with these communities, which is in our opinion unfair.... We feel this decision to sell off Hydro One assets is merely short-term gain for long-term pain.”

Will the Premier take Hydro One out of her Stephen-Harper-style omnibus budget and give groups like NOMA, the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, an opportunity to have their say in some kind of public process? It’s the least they deserve.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting: The very first time I had a really in-depth conversation about northern infrastructure, I was Minister of Transportation, and I was meeting with mayors from northwestern Ontario. I can remember the mayor of Kenora, Dave Canfield, saying to me, “We need a consistent investment in roads and bridges.” I think there are 19 bridges in Kenora. He was asking for predictable infrastructure funding.

In 2010, when I was the Minister of Transportation, that planted a seed that made it clear to me that we needed to do something that would provide infrastructure funding over the long term. That’s what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker: $130 billion over the next 10 years. We are making investments across this province, including in northwestern Ontario, to make sure that communities, municipalities have what they need to thrive economically.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just NOMA, the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association; northern municipalities are speaking out as well because they do not want to have to pay the price for this Premier’s selling off of Hydro One. In fact, in the city of Kenora, Dave Canfield had a motion at his council, and they unanimously voted to send the Premier a letter, calling for her to pull the plug on selling Hydro One. That’s what Dave Canfield has to say today.

The city of Fort Frances is supporting NOMA’s resolution. Councillor Paul Ryan said, “I think they’re going ahead kind of recklessly here.”

These municipalities deserve to have a say. Will the Premier take Hydro One out of her Stephen-Harper-style omnibus bill and let the municipalities of Fort Frances and Kenora have a public hearing to have their say?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re not even in your seat.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I had the pleasure to be in Hamilton this morning. I just want to talk about what we were talking about in Hamilton, because it’s directly related to this issue of having the funding to be able to invest in infrastructure.

We were pleased to announce that we will provide $1 billion for capital costs to build a new LRT in Hamilton, and it was received very, very well.

What this LRT will do is it will offer service from McMaster University through downtown Hamilton to Queenston Circle. It will ultimately extend to Eastgate Square. The question I would ask that the leader of the third party is, which part of that project would she cancel if we did not have the funds to invest in infrastructure?

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just northwestern Ontario. The city of Hamilton, the city of Brantford, Prince Edward county, the city of Toronto—all are entertaining motions calling on this Premier to stop the sell-off of Hydro One, and more are coming.

They know that she’s playing a game of false choices here. The Premier says that she respects municipalities, but respect means more than just lip service; it means actually listening to what people have to say.

Will the Premier take Hydro One out of her Stephen-Harper-style omnibus budget and let Ontarians have a say?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would ask the leader of the third party again: The LRT in Hamilton will ultimately extend to Eastgate Square. It will connect directly to the new West Harbour GO station, and that station will be ready in time for the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That station will be ready for the Pan Am Games. We’re also going to extend the GO rail from West Harbour station to a new GO station at Centennial Parkway in eastern Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader of the third party, which part of those projects—or would she cancel the whole project? Would she just say that Hamilton doesn’t need that connectivity to the rest of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, that Hamilton doesn’t need that new LRT so that it can thrive with its diverse economy? If we don’t have the funds, we can’t make that investment, and that’s exactly what the leader of the third party is suggesting.

Justice system

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Suraiya Gangaram was killed when she was stabbed by her former boyfriend, Lascelles Allen. He was out on bail, released with the condition that he could have no contact with her. Clearly, Lascelles Allen did not follow his bail conditions, and it led to the tragic death of Suraiya Gangaram, leaving three children without their mom.

This tragedy could have been prevented had someone tracked Allen while he was on bail to ensure he was complying with his conditions.

Minister, why aren’t you tracking those who are out on bail and whether they are complying with their bail conditions?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, when I hear about such an unfortunate incident, my heart goes out to the family. Domestic violence is a problem, not just in Ontario. It’s a real problem that we try to address as a government. In my previous position as the Minister of Community Safety, we did a lot of work because the majority of those in our correctional institutions are there—a lot of them—for domestic violence, so there is a lot of work that is being done.

The bail system in Ontario is a program that has been in place for a long time. To say that someone is out on bail and nobody is following what they’re doing is incorrect, because police officers do know who is out on bail and they do follow what they are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, the victims aren’t looking for sympathy; they’re looking for action. Victims must have confidence that when judges set bail conditions there is a process in place to ensure that they will not be re-victimized. Clearly your ministry has failed to do this.

Christopher Husbands was under house arrest when he shot a child in the Eaton Centre. Lascelles Allen bail conditions included no contact with Suraiya Gangaram when he went to her home and killed her.

I will ask you again: For the victims who need to know they will be protected if they report a crime, for the families trying to protect their children from further victimization, for the public who expect bail conditions to be respected and offenders punished when they are ignored, when will you start tracking offenders released from jail to ensure they comply with their bail conditions?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, this is a tragic incident. I cannot believe how a family that is faced with such a tragic incident—and I’ll say that my ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the women’s directorate, we work together and we do everything to make sure that this does not happen.

Again, I’ll say that when these people are out on bail, there is a follow-up done by the police. When someone is found to have violated their bail conditions, they are back in jail.

My heart goes to the family. In my ministry and in this government, we’ll do everything we can to prevent this from happening.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, our schools have been thrown into chaos due to more than a decade of chronic underfunding of education in the province. Instead of ensuring that all students with special needs have the services they need, the Premier and her government have cut $6 million from Toronto schools. Instead of fixing the systemic problem of underfunding, this government chose to cut $250 million over 2014-15. Speaker, page 230 of their budget outlines it.

Then the Premier and her minister say they are perplexed about the ongoing unrest in the education sector. The Liberal government made this mess. Instead of fixing the problem they are again—recall Bill 115—choosing to legislate instead of negotiate.

Premier, will you recognize the failure of your Minister of Education to get a deal with teachers and fire her immediately?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I really think what we all need to focus on today is the fact that we have heard from the Education Relations Commission that the school year is in jeopardy for 72,000 children, for 72,000 students. What we really need to focus on is, how do we get those kids back in the classrooms and get them there right away?

Now, if we’d had the co-operation of the NDP yesterday, we could have had those kids back in the schools today. Every day we don’t get co-operation on speedy passage of the bill is another day that students are out of school.

I remember a day in 2008 when there was a TTC strike, and the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals all worked together to pass back-to-work legislation in one day.

We could do that for the 72,000 students who are out of class. We could do that, but we need to work together.

My priority now is to get the kids back in class.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: What the minister should be focusing on is actually trying to negotiate a deal, not legislate.

Back to the Premier: The Premier and her minister have had months to get a deal with teachers that would put students first, and this doesn’t mean—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: —to keep class sizes manageable and doesn’t mean a further reduction of services in the classroom. Students and families should not be shouldering the brunt of the cost of Liberal scandals. It’s obvious that the minister has failed students and families by not really trying to get a deal with teachers.

Speaker, will the Premier force her minister to take responsibility for making students pay the price of her failings by firing her immediately?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Actually, there are negotiations going on this week. Negotiations do continue, because we believe we should get a negotiated settlement. But sometimes that doesn’t work. Sometimes there’s a strike.

I think the party opposite needs to remember that when they were the government, they actually asked the ERC for advice three times. Three times the ERC gave jeopardy rulings when they were government.

In the first case, the parties agreed voluntarily to go back to work and to have binding arbitration, which is actually what is in the bill. But in the other two cases, the parties didn’t agree to go back to work when there was a jeopardy ruling, the NDP government tabled back-to-work legislation and everybody in the House came together to pass it.

Youth employment

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Since the global downturn, Ontario’s economy has not only recovered but is projected to lead the country in economic growth. Since the recession, Ontario has created more than 500,000 jobs—510,200 jobs, to be exact. Nearly 98% of the jobs recovered since the recession are full-time positions, 73% in above-wage industries. In fact, our job recovery rate since the recession is 187%, well outpacing the United States, at 134%. However, youth unemployment rates remain too high, and our government recognizes that.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you please explain to this House what is being done to tackle youth unemployment?

Hon. Brad Duguid: While Ontario’s economy remains poised to lead the country in growth this year, and probably next year as well, the fact is that youth unemployment remains far too high. That’s why we announced the youth jobs strategy in 2013 that is investing $295 million over two years to help 30,000 young people from across the province gain necessary job experience.

Since the fall of 2013, more than 26,000 young people have seen opportunities and work experience that they’ve been able to obtain through this program. However, there’s still more work to do. That’s why, in this year’s budget, we’re renewing the youth jobs strategy by providing an additional $250 million. This will bring our total investment in youth employment programming to more than $565 million. Through these investments, we’re helping our province’s youth succeed and get good job experience.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to thank the minister for that answer. I appreciate being part of a government that is making smart, strategic investments to tackle the province’s youth unemployment rate. In fact, last week I announced how our government’s investments are benefiting some of the youth in my riding of York South–Weston.

Through the Youth Skills Connections Program, $125,000 is being invested so that youth from the Weston-Mount Dennis area will be able to gain relevant job experience. These young constituents will gain critical employment skills that would allow them to transition into Ontario’s job market.

Can the minister please explain how the Youth Skills Connections Program is helping youth across the province to gain the experience they need to succeed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the work she’s doing in her own community when it comes to some of these youth employment programs, and working with some of her local groups to ensure that the young people in her community get access to these very important programs.

The Youth Skills Connections Program promotes partnerships among business, labour, educators, not-for-profits and youth to identify and solve skills development issues. In the first intake, the Youth Skills Connections Program invested more than $13 million to support 51 programs across the country. Some 3,400 young people have already received employment training through this program. Currently, the province is investing over $11 million to launch the second intake of the Youth Skills Connections Program. The second intake will involve 45 programs that will be selected to help young people get the skills and training they need to succeed.

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Rather than heckling on our efforts to provide youth employment opportunities, the opposition should be supporting our budget—

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

Special education

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, as a result of 12 years of mismanagement and waste by your government, people are suffering. Special education is in need of adequate levels of investment; vulnerable children are in need of educational assistants so they have proper support to learn and achieve success in the classroom. This is why no parent and no student in Bluewater District School Board can accept that you’re sitting on your hands—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: —as 50 special education EAs are removed from the classroom. Making vulnerable kids pay the price for your mismanagement and waste is wrong and, frankly, it’s unconscionable.

Minister, I ask you: How do you justify cutting 50 educational assistants at Bluewater District School Board under your watch as Minister of Education when the number of needy children has not decreased?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Obviously, special education is very important to us. It might interest the member opposite to know that when I was a trustee I served for years on my board’s special education advisory committee, so this is actually an area that I feel quite strongly about: special education.

Because we feel very strongly about it—both my predecessor, the Premier, and myself—our special education funding has actually gone up over $1.1 billion, by 68%, since 2002-03. So we’re actually spending $2.72 billion on special education. That’s not a reduced number. The special education funding remains steady, just like all the other areas of the funding model—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Minister of Education: Here’s the truth. Kathy Cotter’s seven-year-old daughter is bearing the brunt of your cuts. She has retinal dystrophy and is legally blind. With her EA gone, there will be no one to Braille her books. Candice Huber’s eight-year-old son has type 1 diabetes and hypoglycemic episodes. With his EA gone, there will be no one to watch and help keep him safe.

Kathy, Candice and many other parents with children with learning, mental, physical and a myriad of health issues have lost faith in you, your Premier and your government. You’re sitting on your hands while blind, autistic and diabetic students are losing the critical school support they need. These students are frustrated, their parents are stressed out and your only answer to them is, “Not true”? Minister, how can you put the Liberal Party’s political fortunes ahead of Ontario’s vulnerable children?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I said before, the fortunes of our special needs children are very important to us. In fact, one of the things that we’ve been doing through the recent labour disruptions is making sure that the most vulnerable children still continue to receive community services.

To go directly to your question, one of the things that has happened in Bluewater, in the board that is in your area, is that the number of children in Bluewater has dramatically decreased. Despite the fact that the enrolment has gone down over the last 10 years, the funding has actually gone up by 40%. Think about this: The funding has gone up 40%; the number of children in Bluewater has gone down. So the amount of special needs funding in Bluewater—

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

Ontario Energy Board

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The government insists that the Ontario Energy Board will protect Ontarians from higher hydro rates when the Premier sells off Hydro One. It doesn’t make any sense.

Now the government is stacking the OEB with people from the energy sector. The government just appointed Paul Pastirik, a former senior VP of Aecon, to the Ontario Energy Board. Aecon shares the mega-contract to refurbish the Darlington nuclear plant with SNC-Lavalin. The Premier is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Is the Premier ready to admit that the OEB isn’t going to stand up to a privatized Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Energy Board and all of the crown corporations and agencies have very strict conflict-of-interest regulations. There are a tremendous number of people out there with experience who can contribute, and because they are engaged in the community or engaged in the economy, that should not disentitle them to serve. There are people in this room who declare interest o