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

December 8, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-08 (PDF)

L132 - Tue 8 Dec 2015 / Mar 8 déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 December 2015 Mardi 8 décembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Health care

Long-term care

Health care funding

Job creation

Home care

Correctional facilities

Growth planning

Long-term care

Trucking safety

Forest industry

Ontario Drug Benefit Program / Programme de médicaments de l’Ontario

Hospital funding

Mining industry

Health care

Birth of member’s grandchild

Deferred Votes

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Time allocation

Member’s birthday

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Christmas volunteers

First responders

2015 World Junior A Challenge

Harry Pratt

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

EcuLinks Etobicoke

Health care funding

Humber North Campus

My Community is United

Financial statements, Auditor General

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Hospital funding

Privatization of public assets

GO Transit

Landfill

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Financement des soins de santé

GO Transit

Health care funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Lung health

Orders of the Day

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

House sittings

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Do we have a quorum, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum, please.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That only those amendments to the bill which had already been filed with the Clerk of the Committee at its meeting on Thursday, December 3, 2015, shall be considered and, at 1:15 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, such amendments shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto, no 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(

a) being permitted; and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, December 9, 2015. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Gravelle has moved government order number 60. Back to the minister.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is a very important piece of legislation. If passed, it will provide increased fairness to all workers across Ontario. If passed, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act would provide more tools to resolve disputes in the fire sector, it would ensure that broader public sector transitions go as smoothly as possible through greater efficiency and stability, and it would help provide a fair, just and efficient workers’ compensation system.

The fact is that both parties across the aisle decided that they were going to play some procedural tricks in committee and hold up this important piece of legislation indefinitely. We believe very strongly that it’s important we move forward with Bill 109. If one goes back to the last Parliament, the Legislature was frequently ground to a halt and was unable to move forward precisely because of those kinds of procedural manoeuvres from the other parties. Frankly, it now appears that the opposition is actually attempting to do same thing with Bill 109, which is most unfortunate.

Some of the facts of the last Parliament are probably worth relaying. Only 39% of government bills were passed in the last minority government. That does compare to more than three quarters of bills that were passed going back to 1990.

We now do have a new Parliament as of June 2014, and I think the people that put our government in place have sent a pretty clear message: They want our government to get on with the business of governing in the best interests of all Ontarians. Certainly, that’s why I stand here today, urging all members in this House to support this motion and help pass this important bill as soon as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Over to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for further debate.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m glad to be in the Legislature this morning to represent my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills and also to discharge my responsibilities as the official opposition critic for the Minister of Labour, which means I have the opportunity to speak first in response to this time allocation motion and, I gather, when the bill is called for third reading.

I must say that I beg to differ with the minister who just spoke, who moved the time allocation motion, who stated that both opposition parties were tying up the bill in committee. Unfortunately, I would have to say that he’s been misinformed. Whoever has reported that to him has given him false and erroneous information.

The fact is, we have had one day of clause-by-clause consideration at committee starting at, as you know, Mr. Speaker, 9 o’clock in the morning till 10:15, and then resuming at 2 o’clock in the afternoon till 6 o’clock.

It is true that we, as opposition members, moved amendments to the bill, which is our responsibility in committee, I think. If we have ideas and suggestions, if we have concerns, and in fact, if the public hearings that were part of the process too brought forward ideas and suggestions from organizations that have an interest in the bill—thoughtful suggestions—I think we as members of the Legislature have an obligation to listen to those public hearings, surely, and then in turn reflect some of what we’ve heard and some of our own ideas into the process through the clause-by-clause consideration, where amendments are moved, debated and voted upon.

Now, it is true that the debates were quite lengthy in the public hearings last Thursday, and they did drag on to some degree. I think if you check the time that was taken up by the opposition parties, certainly one party—the New Democrats—was taking more time, but I’m not saying that to criticize. They had concerns; they have an opportunity to present those concerns at committee.

It’s interesting that the government is now saying that one day of clause-by-clause on a bill is a delay, that there’s a delay going on, that the opposition is using procedural tricks to slow down the process. Mr. Speaker, that is fundamentally false. It’s not a factual statement. Yet, this government appears to be becoming so arrogant that they think that one day of clause-by-clause is an undue delay in the process. Then they stand here the very next week, the Tuesday following, and accuse us of delay.

I would ask them to think about that and reflect upon it, because certainly I think most members of the government side would agree that there has to be some sort of a public process before debates are concluded and that the opposition has a role to play. There are a number of members on the government side who have never served in opposition, but there are quite a few who have, and I think there needs to be a greater understanding on the government’s side of what the role of the opposition is and, in turn, our responsibility to have a democratic process for consideration of legislation, leading to a final vote at third reading, and not just ramming a bill through the House.

Now, it’s also true that the government is increasingly using time allocation as a means of expediting the passage of legislation. I certainly would admit that, when we were in government, we, from time to time, used time allocation too, especially in the final months of our term. But, I also think, to the extent that it is used routinely, it is a diminution of the democratic process. Again, I would ask the members on the government side to reflect upon these comments because I think they’re important ones that need to be considered.

Bill 109: Of course, as I said, we haven’t had a complete opportunity to discuss the bill in terms of clause-by-clause discussion, but this time allocation motion would send it—in fact, I should put it on the record. This time allocation motion, as I understand it, was tabled late yesterday afternoon, which means it’s printed on the order paper, which appears on our desks the next day, which is today. I hadn’t had a chance to see the time allocation motion until I came into the House this morning at five to 9, and now we’re debating it. There’s something funny about that kind of a process too.

I realize we’re getting close to Christmas, and there’s always a mad dash to conclude the things that the government wants to conclude, but there was really no indication, up until a few days ago, that the government was insistent on getting Bill 109 passed before Christmas. It seemed to be that the government was prepared to allow a reasonable process. But, of course, as we find out today, that proves not to be the case.

I want to say that

schedule 1 of the bill, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, which creates amendments to the—sorry; the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, is a

schedule that we support in the official opposition. Our new leader, Patrick Brown, has, for years, had very a strong working relationship with the professional firefighting services. Even though he served in the House of Commons, he had a lot of involvement and interaction with the professional firefighters in the province of Ontario, and certainly in his riding. He has a high degree of respect for the work that they do, as I do, and, I think, as all members of the House do. But we certainly want to work in a co-operative and constructive way with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and work with them to ensure that public safety is paramount. We do support

schedule 1.

I have, for years, as you know, Mr. Speaker, stood up in support of two-hatter firefighters, and I’m pleased that there is at least some level of legislative protection for two-hatter firefighters as a portion of Bill 109. That was certainly my

interpretation when I read the bill initially.

I want to make reference to AMO’s presentation to the committee, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Unfortunately, they didn’t get a chance to be there personally, but they sent in a written presentation. They said:

“As we understand it, Bill 109 would amend the FPPA to address membership in firefighter associations in a number of ways. First, the FPPA would be amended to expressly permit associations to require the inclusion of closed-shop language in a collective agreement, which already exists in many of our members’ fire collective agreements. This includes features such as mandatory association dues deductions and provisions requiring membership in the association or giving preference of employment to members of an association.

“However, these new provisions are balanced”—and they emphasize the word “balanced”—“by the inclusion of provisions designed to protect individual firefighters. These protections include where a firefighter has been expelled or suspended from their association, or who have been denied membership or had it withheld from them. The basis for these protections is a number of protected grounds, including, for example, engaging in ‘reasonable dissent’ within the association. These provisions may assist municipal governments that employ full-time firefighters who also serve as volunteer firefighters in other municipalities, who are often referred to as ‘double-hatters.’”

Again, Mr. Speaker, double-hatter firefighters tend to be full-time professional firefighters who work for a city fire department, but might live in a small town nearby. They may want to act as part-time firefighters, or what we used to call volunteer firefighters, in their home communities on their days off. In some cases, going back to even before the introduction of my bill, Bill 30, in 2002, there were situations where the professional firefighters’ union was threatening to expel two-hatters from the firefighters’ union, which would have meant the termination of their full-time employment.

It was a very heavy-handed sanction that was being threatened against—not in every case—but in a number of cases where two-hatters were wanting to continue to serve in their home communities.

I stood up for the two-hatter firefighters in a private member’s bill that came to be very controversial and, in the end, was defeated by this Legislature, unfortunately, but received more hours of debate than any other private member’s bill in the history of the province of Ontario going back to 1950. We stopped looking at 1950.

The point we made was supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Fire Fighters’ Association of Ontario—which is the volunteer, or part-time, association—and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, three important stakeholders in the fire service, who all agreed with my bill and spoke out in favour of it publicly, even though it was very controversial. Also, the fire marshal of the day, Bernard Moyle, actually came to the legislative committee—the province’s fire marshal, the senior fire official in the province—and spoke in favour of legislative protection for two-hatter firefighters.

The irony is, 13 years later, here we are and the Liberal Party that spoke so strongly against my bill in 2002 and worked hard against it, with the exception of a couple of their members who supported my bill on a free vote at third reading, are now in government and bringing in some measure of legislative protection for two-hatter firefighters. I hope that it is the protection that we need, and I would suggest that it’s a good day for public safety in rural Ontario if indeed it is.

The other

schedule of the bill that I think needs to be talked about is the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, or PSLRTA as it’s sometimes called. When we were in government, in 1997 we brought in legislation to require a vote when there was a merger of two workplaces coming together, to determine which union would represent the workers in the merged workplace. We call this merger-driven representation votes. Many of the public sector unions are very concerned about this provision in Bill 109. They expressed their concern at committee, and we listened.

In many cases, public sector unions are saying that they want to continue the opportunity to have a free vote when there is a merger-driven process.

We know that the Minister of Health is talking about substantial restructuring of the health care system. He’s talked about that publicly. It would appear that there is a restructuring of the health care system on the horizon. I think that’s why many of the public sector unions are very concerned about this. They want to have a say if indeed two workplaces are merged, allowing each individual member a secret ballot vote to decide which union they want to represent them. The government is saying no.

We argued at committee that this is, again, a diminution of democratic rights. When you’re taking away a vote from someone in the interest of an expeditious decision that may not represent the true interests of the individual members or give them an opportunity to have their say, surely, Mr. Speaker, that, again, is a diminution of democracy in the workplace. That was a view that was supported by a number of the public sector unions that came forward—not all; there are some that are for it, some that are against it.

The New Democrats, when they speak to this time allocation motion—I’m sure the member for Welland will talk about this, but we agree that there should be a continuance of the opportunity for merger-driven representation votes, and it shouldn’t just be a slam dunk decision by the government.

In fact, the government is saying, “Trust us. Through regulation, we’ll set the appropriate threshold.” They’ve given an indication that if 60% of the workers in a newly merged workplace belong to one union, then that would be the threshold, and then the decision would be made to approve that union as the bargaining agent.

But the fact is, there have been a number of cases over the years—and we’ve been told at committee and no one has disputed this—that even where there was a clear majority of one union representing the workers in a newly merged workplace, that union didn’t necessarily win the vote. Again, this is an issue of serious concern for our caucus.

Of course, what the government has done is brought together three very different issues into one bill. That would be characterized by some as an omnibus bill, Mr. Speaker, and I think fairly so. It’s not a massive omnibus bill, but there are three very different labour issues brought together: the first one, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act amendments, which we support; the second one, the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, which we do not support; and then the third area is the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act revisions.

I hope I can find the presentation that was made to the committee—it was a written presentation, albeit, by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. They were just here at the Legislature, and I’m sure they met with many MPPs on the government side. They’re one of the most important trade organizations in the country, really, representing our manufacturers all across Canada. They do an outstanding job. They’ve been in existence for, I think, 100 years, representing the interests of manufacturing, which is one of the pillars of our economy and hopefully will be in the future—and, as I said, has been in the past.

Unfortunately, we’ve lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs in recent years, in part because of deliberate and conscious provincial government decisions, whether it comes to hydro, regulation or tax, and the anticipation of higher taxes because of the massive debts and deficits that have been run.

The Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, now called the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, did express concerns about this bill and this provision of the act,

schedule 3, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. They said this to us at committee:

“With respect to Bill 109, CME is objecting to the proposed changes outlined in

schedule 3 of the bill which amends the” Workplace Safety and Insurance Act by:

“—creating a new offence for employer claims suppression

“—increasing the maximum penalty for corporations on conviction from $100,000 to $500,000

“—the potential for the creation of new administrative penalties by way of regulation.”

They go on to say—and I’m going to have to paraphrase here because I’m running out of time—that they believe that the proposed legislative amendments are the result of unsubstantiated views that claims suppression is a prevalent activity which employers are using to keep workplace safety and insurance costs down. “It would appear that anecdotal evidence, not substantiated by any reliable studies, is serving as the impetus for new claims suppression penalties which we believe are unwarranted and unnecessary,” and they go on in great detail.

We also heard from one of the, I would say, most knowledgeable experts on workers’ compensation issues in the province of Ontario, Les Liversidge, who made a presentation at the committee and who again made the point that these allegations of claims suppression by employers are largely unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence. There may be some anecdotal examples that the government might cite, and I’m told that the Ministry of Labour believes that this is happening and that there need to be changes to reflect that. But we still say, where’s the evidence? We haven’t seen it.

The government hasn’t tabled it, the Ministry of Labour hasn’t tabled it, the WSIB hasn’t tabled it. So I question whether this is really an issue or if it’s just an issue that the government is making up to try to make it appear that employers are all bad and they’re all out there to abuse their employees, and it’s part of a left-wing government’s agenda to make employers look bad so as to continue to bring forward new regulation, higher tax and bigger government that we can’t afford.

The fact is, in our free market economy, companies need to make money in order to reinvest and create jobs, and unfortunately, I’m not sure this government understands that in full. Companies need to make money. There’s nothing wrong with companies making a profit. We on this side of the House understand that; I’m not sure that the current government does. They think that business is a cow that can just be milked morning and night.

They don’t seem to understand that if we want to have a private sector economy, we have to grow the private sector economy, we have to encourage the private sector economy, we have to have policies which encourage investors to want to invest in the province of Ontario, to create the new jobs we need. Unfortunately, I would have to say that is severely lacking. I have seen, unfortunately, in recent months and years with this government, not necessarily a deliberate and conscious effort to kill entrepreneurialism in the province, but the cumulative effect of all their policies is doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this time allocation motion. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more time, because we’re going to cede the floor to the NDP—but at the same time, time allocations should not be used routinely in this House. Every time it is used, it is a diminution of the democratic process and the process that should be employed in this House in the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’m happy to get up and talk about this time allocation motion around Bill 109 that we’re here for this morning.

I heard the minister, who spoke very briefly to this issue—in fact, the members on the government side of the House really have not spoken to Bill 109 at any length. I think the most anyone has spoken about it was five minutes.

This is a very important bill. Unfortunately, it’s one of those small omnibus bills that has a poison pill in the middle of it. One piece of it,

schedule 1, addresses protections for firefighters similar to those protections afforded to most workers in the province under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and it brings firefighters in line with that.

We heard from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association at the deputations back on November 26, and they were very supportive of the legislation, which is going to give them some badly needed protections. However, they weren’t happy that in the middle of this bill there is a

schedule 2 which is attacking workers’ rights to have a vote when there’s a merger or an amalgamation in the public sector—that could be a municipality, a hospital, the health care sector or the school system.

This morning, the minister talked about this bill bringing fairness to workers in this province. The PSLRTA legislation has been in place for 20 years, and there wasn’t anybody who didn’t think that it was fair. This was legislation brought in under the Tories. It had some problems in the beginning, but over 20 years the processes have been worked out in amenable ways through decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The process works quite smoothly when there are votes.

What is problematic here today is the fact that we’re in the midst of time—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please.

I’m having a little difficulty hearing our speaker this morning. If you have a conversation going on, I would ask you to please lower your voice so that I can still hear our speaker and show her the respect that she should have. Thank you very much.

Please continue.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the members on the government side really aren’t interested in protecting workers in this province, or they’re not paying any attention to the rights of workers in this province.

Here we find ourselves with a very important bill that is going to affect hundreds of thousands of workers in this province. There are 444 municipalities, another hundred hospital systems, 500 nursing homes, 90-some school boards in the province that could be impacted by this legislation. In any one of a merger and amalgamation, which we see more and more as this government continues to cut budgets by 6% and freezes budgets in health care—we’re going see more of these mergers as the government does their health care transformation. Health care workers, in particular, are going to be impacted by this legislation.

In the past, workers had the right to go to a vote under PSLRTA. If you had 60% of the people unionized and 40% of the people not unionized, you went to a vote. Or if you had two unions representing the same workers, you went to a vote. What this legislation is proposing is that if one union has 60%, there will be no vote, so workers will no longer have the right to choose the union of their choice.

We feel, and certainly the workers who we heard from at the deputations feel that this isn’t fair, and that in fact in every case there should be a vote so that nurses and perhaps education workers, if there was a merger of a school board, municipal workers—both inside and outside municipal workers, in the case of a merger—would have the right to choose the union.

Now, some unions provide better service than others. Some provide some services that other unions don’t provide. For example, some unions will do compensation appeals for their members and CPP appeals, where other unions, because you’re not required to provide those services, may not. So when we get to these vote situations, workers in this province have the right to have a look at what services unions actually provide and make their decision based on that.

I can tell you, Speaker, that in my experience—and I participated in, I would say, at least 20 of these PSLRTA votes over the years, when I was working for the Ontario Nurses’ Association—in all cases, the union that had the higher percentage of workers didn’t necessarily win the vote. There were situations where a union only held 10% of the workforce going in and they actually ended up with a 100% of that classification of worker at the end of the day—maybe because they had a good campaign; perhaps because they provided good service to their members; or because they provided certain services that appealed to the members.

The minister spoke this morning about the opposition parties trying to delay this bill. In fact, we were in clause-by-clause. It was only one day last week. We had a number of important amendments to this bill and we had a number of our members who wanted to get on the record. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo was in to speak on the bill, and the member from Niagara Falls. The member from Oshawa actually spoke twice because she had a lot to say on Bill 109. When we’re talking about democracy, I think that it is important for everyone to have the opportunity to debate important bills such as this one.

What we did hear at those deputations on November 26 was that there was only one consultation by the government, which is very concerning to me and to New Democrats. You’re putting in a bill that’s going to change the face of a voting process for certain groups of people in the public sector and you’ve only consulted with one stakeholder. I asked that question, Speaker, in those deputations, of each and every person that participated, and there was only one stakeholder that had been consulted.

The rest of the stakeholders—OPSEU, CUPE, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, CLAC, the Christian Labour Association of Canada—none of those unions who are going to be affected by the changes in this bill were even called, nor were they consulted. The only time they heard about it was once the bill was tabled.

Now, they had been consulted back in 2013, during the budget process. The Minister of Labour had contacted them—or the Minister of Labour’s staff, I guess, had contacted them—and at that point, after having those consultations two years ago, they were told that this legislation was not going to be brought forward, that there was no need to bring it forward and that it was a dead issue. Then, once it gets tabled again, they were not consulted at that point in time.

Interestingly enough, we did an FOI to the ministry and what came back was that there was one stakeholder consultation, which we confirmed at the deputations. The Minister of Labour in that FOI said, “There are no problems with respect to PSLRTA,” so there was really no need to bring this issue forward. So one has to wonder why in fact the government did bring the issue forward.

So, Speaker, I don’t think that there is any undue delay in this process, as the minister indicated from the government this morning, but certainly this is a fundamental change in a process that may actually see a charter challenge at the end of the day.

If I can just share with you, there is some case law on this situation. It was the Mounted Police case in the Supreme Court that found that

section 2(

d) of the charter guarantees “a meaningful process of collective bargaining” which includes “a process that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine their collective interests and meaningfully pursue them.” A

summary of the case is here as well.

The court noted that the hallmark of employee choice included “the ability to form and join new associations, to change representatives”—as I have talked about this morning—“to set and change collective workplace goals, and to dissolve existing associations,” for which there is a process already under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. And accountability to the members of the association is an important element of choice.

Legal experts, Speaker, are of the view that the proposed amendments under Bill 109 to the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act would not stand a charter scrutiny. Depriving union members of the union of their choice on the basis that they fell below an arbitrary minimum percentage of a newly integrated bargaining unit is an unnecessary infringement of their charter right to the union of their choice, so the proposed change is totally unnecessary. There have been no problems under the current provisions, and having a vote without an arbitrary cut-off is consistent with workplace democracy and charter rights.

Now, it’s interesting that, at this point, this Bill 109 really only applies to those sectors that I talked about: health care, school boards and municipalities. But, in fact, people are now starting, over the last few days as we’ve been debating Bill 109, to pay attention in the private sector and in other parts of the public sector.

Just yesterday, actually, I had the opportunity to speak to a couple of long-time labour lawyers here in Toronto who are concerned that this legislation may threaten votes in other public sectors not anticipated under this PSLRTA act, and in the private sector, because, currently, if there are mergers or amalgamations of private businesses across this province and both of those workplaces are unionized and they go to the labour board, the labour board is the body that would order a vote. In those situations, historically, a vote was never ordered unless it was at about an 85% threshold; in some instances, even a 90% threshold.

And so now, in fact, the board, if this bill is passed, may have a look and say, “Well, you know, maybe we should be using this threshold more broadly across this province.” And I can tell you that that is perking the ears of many unions across this province. It’s a problem today, and I think it’s going to be a bigger problem if this legislation is passed.

I want to spend a few minutes, as well, because I believe that this really is an infringement on workers’ rights—I want to talk a bit about some of the other things that this government has been infringing on with respect to workers in the province. Just yesterday, we had Michael Prue’s tip-out bill. That was a bill that was supposed to protect workers in this province from unscrupulous employers who actually were taking their tips. The member from Beaches–East York put an amendment to his own bill, and that amendment took away the protections that the bill had intended in the first place. It certainly wasn’t Michael Prue’s bill at the end of the day.

Here again is an infringement on workers in this province who are paid the lowest amount of money of any worker—$9.55 for a server. Now, this amendment would allow employers to take 3% to 5%—I hear in the restaurant industry, it’s generally 2.5%—of their tips to pay the bank service fees if you use a debit card or a credit card. Speaker, if you go into a restaurant, spend $100 and leave a $20 tip, that server is now going to lose perhaps 2% or 3% of that $20 tip.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Who’s going to get it?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Well, the employer is going to get it. The owner is going to actually get that tip.

Now, it may not seem like a lot, but if you’re serving 20 tables, that could add up to $5 or $6 in a day, which could be as much as $1,000 or $1,500 in a year for people who are working below the poverty line even when they’re working full-time in the restaurant industry or anywhere else.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: How much would an employer make in a year?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Well, how much would an employer make in a year if they had 50 employees all giving them $5 or $6 every day they’re working?

That is problematic. It is an infringement. It is not protecting service sector employees. It is not what was intended in the bill.

I spoke to a fellow from Ottawa who has been involved with this bill since the beginning, since Michael Prue introduced it back in 2010. He wasn’t happy with that amendment. He was happy to see the bill pushed through, but he certainly wasn’t happy with that amendment, because all it’s doing is taking money out of the pockets of servers and service sector workers in this province.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sounds like a Liberal thing to do.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It sounds like a Liberal thing. I mean, the Liberals talk about being progressive, right? They’re so progressive. But every time they introduce a bill, there’s a bill that is either attached to it or embedded in it that isn’t quite so progressive. So I think that people need to know that, and that’s why we are standing up here talking about why we don’t need to time-allocate all of these things and why we need to have more debate on these issues.

I also wanted to talk a bit about another non-progressive bill, Bill 144, in which was embedded the EllisDon bill. It used to be Bill 74. The Liberals voted against that bill. I think it was the member from—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Monte McNaughton.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Monte McNaughton. I can’t remember; maybe you can help me, Speaker.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. He introduced a bill a couple of years ago, Bill 74. It was a bill that would have actually ended a historic contract between EllisDon and some of the building trades—I think UA Plumbers and Pipefitters, sheet metal workers and another group; I can’t quite remember who it was. But anyway, this agreement had gone on for 60 years.

That member introduced a private member’s bill. The government initially seemed to be supporting it, but at the end of the day, when it came to a vote, they voted against it. They did that because we were going into an election and they needed that support. They didn’t need to have that hanging over their head at the time.

But interestingly enough, now buried in Bill 144—the EllisDon bill has been resurrected. It was called the Fairness and Competitiveness in Ontario’s Construction Industry Act at the time, but now it’s just a schedule. I think it’s

schedule 12 in Bill 144.

This 60-year-old agreement required EllisDon projects in the Sarnia area to only hire sheet metal and electrical contractors. It applies to every area outside of the GTA and only to the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.

The Liberals and the Conservatives both supported EllisDon—a major political donor to the Liberals and PCs—to break its contracts with tradespersons who work for the company. EllisDon appealed that decision to the OLRB and then to Divisional Court. The OLRB actually supported the unions in this particular case, and then the Divisional Court overturned the OLRB decision. It then went on to the Court of Appeal, where it got overturned again in favour of the unions. Then the Supreme Court refused to hear it, so the 60-year agreement was still in place.

Well, that wasn’t good enough for EllisDon or for the government, and so—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re one and the same.

Ms. Cindy Forster: They’re one and the same, yes.

So the Minister of Labour then ordered a mediation process. He brought in an arbitrator—a well-respected arbitrator—and they mediated for a couple of weekends, and they thought they had a deal, but at the end of the day, they didn’t. It didn’t ratify, and you know that those kinds of processes need to have a ratification, they need to have an end. Well, it didn’t ratify, and so we find ourselves with this bill back before us in Bill 144.

This is the third bill that I’m talking about that is an infringement on workers’ rights here in the province of Ontario, and all of these bills are being time-allocated. The omnibus bill, Bill 144, the vast majority of the amendments yesterday in committee—I went and sat in committee with our finance critic, Catherine Fife, and when we got to 2 o’clock, they just—

Ms. Soo Wong: Four o’clock.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Oh, maybe it was 4 o’clock. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It felt like 2.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It felt like 2 o’clock to me, but it was 4 o’clock. At that point, they weren’t anywhere through the amendments to the bill, but they just deemed them all to have passed at the end of the day. Many, many schedules, in that very short period of time I was in there—I think there were probably eight or nine schedules passed in about 10 minutes, without any opportunity for any party to actually debate the issues.

Anyway, back to

schedule 12: We fast-forward to November 2014, and we find ourselves back with this EllisDon situation. During debate, New Democrats pointed out that if EllisDon genuinely felt that there was a competitive disadvantage because of the OLRB decision in 2012, it had its recourse through collective bargaining. Really, that’s how unions and employers—I mean, that’s why you join a union. You join a union so that you actually have the right to negotiate.

If I take us back to the tip-out bill, that’s the other amendment that is problematic in it. The new regulations, the new parts of the bill that would have advantaged service sector workers—the lowest-paid workers in the province—if you happen to work in a workplace that is unionized, those new provisions do not apply to those workers until the collective agreement expires. This is different from what happens to every other worker in this province. If the Employment Standards Act makes an improvement, that supersedes the collective agreement if it’s better. If it’s worse, the collective agreement supersedes.

But for these workers in the service sector, they’re going to have to wait to make sure that their employers don’t steal their tips until the collective agreement expires.

In today’s world, that could be a three- or four-year collective agreement. In the old days, when the member from Timmins–James Bay and I were negotiating collective agreements, they might have been one-year or two-year collective agreements, because things were good in those days and you could actually negotiate some good pensions and benefits and wage increases, unlike today, when wages are frozen for five years here in the Legislature.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Longer than that.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Longer than that. How many years?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve been here 26, and I’ve been frozen all but five.

Ms. Cindy Forster: All right, so the member from Timmins–James Bay said that his wages have been frozen for 20 of 26 years here in the Legislature.

There were advantages to having short-term collective agreements: You could go back and get some really good working-condition improvements for your workers. But in this situation under this tip-out bill, these workers may be in a collective agreement that they’re stuck in for the next three years and not see any improvement in their tips during that period. Thankfully, though, if that’s the case and this passes, they won’t have to pay those bank and credit card fees for three years either. In any event, I’m told that there’s very low unionization in the service sector, so hopefully it won’t impact that many employees.

I think you can get that the theme here, Speaker. The reason we’re talking about Bill 109,

schedule 12 of Bill 144 and Bill 12—the tip-out bill from the former member from Beaches–East York, Michael Prue—is because workers’ rights are being infringed upon in each one of these pieces of legislation. We don’t know why this progressive Liberal government wants to negatively impact workers in this province.

As I said, potentially hundreds of thousands of workers in the public sector could be affected by Bill 109, thousands of workers are going to be affected by Bill 12, and we know that there are thousands of construction workers as well who are going to be impacted by Bill 144,

schedule 12, when the government ends this 60-year agreement with EllisDon.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Save me some time.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, okay.

I’m going to wrap up now. I just want to go back, though, and address the fact that the minister, who spoke for about three minutes to Bill 109 this morning, accused the opposition parties of trying to stall this bill. I think it’s important for each and every one of us to get on the record about how these workers’ rights will be infringed upon and negatively impacted, perhaps for the rest of their lives, by the introduction and the passing of these bills.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s unfortunate that we find ourselves with yet another time allocation motion. What a bad way of doing legislation.

There is some legitimate concern on the part of New Democrats on one particular

section of this bill. Rather than the government saying, “Okay, fine. We get it. We’ll hive off that part of the bill and deal with the rest of the bill in order to move it forward”—because, quite frankly, we can support most of what’s in this bill; there’s one particular

section that we don’t support—the government decides it’s going to have to do things in this way.

I just think it’s a darn shame because what we end up with is legislation being passed through this House in a very expedited manner that doesn’t give the opportunity for those people in our society who have something to say about what the government is doing here to have that say.

In a parliamentary democracy, we are very blessed. We have a process by which we don’t just have a debate at second reading, which gives members the ability to speak to the particular bill, but, more importantly, we have the ability for people to be heard in the committee process.

There used to be a time in this place not that long ago when, if bills were somewhat controversial or completely controversial, there would be a negotiation between the opposition and the government in order to allow the bill to travel in the intersession so that those people who wanted to say something on the bill had an opportunity to say it. The government, with its majority, always got what it wanted. That’s the way the parliamentary process works. They have a majority of seats on the other side of the House and of course they would get their way in the end, but the public would at least be heard.

I do distinctly remember Kathleen Wynne, our Premier, saying when she was elected that she wanted to have conversations with Ontarians; she wanted to consult the people of Ontario; she wanted people to feel as if this was their government and they had an ability to have their say.

What we’re seeing with the Liberals is essentially what we used to see under the Tories: If they don’t agree with the government, time-allocate and don’t give the public an opportunity to have their say. In fairness to the Harris government, even they travelled bills that were controversial, because the—

Mr. Steve Clark: What about the Rae government?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, no, I’m just saying that even under the Harris government, who time-allocated at a fair degree—they were probably the record keepers of the time allocation motions—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Fair as in the opposite of unfair?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Fair as the opposite of unfair. But I would say that at least Mr. Harris allowed the bill to travel. There would be this process by which the opposition would sit with the government House leader. They would have a discussion and say, “Okay, that particular bill, we get. You have legitimate concerns.” There would be some time afforded for the public to have their say, and the bill would travel in the intersession so that those people who were interested in saying something on a bill had a chance to do it.

This government, when it comes to that, says that no, they know best, they have a majority, they can do what they want and they don’t need to listen to the public unless the public is saying what they want to hear. When the public is saying something opposite to what the government wants to hear, or is oppositional in some ways to what the government is trying to do, this government says, “No, you know, this long-standing tradition of parliamentary democracy that has been developed over hundreds of years and gives the public the right to have their say, we’re going to have nothing to do with it.

We’re going to utilize our parliamentary democracy by way of a time allocation motion, to not only limit but stifle the ability of the public to have their say.”

Now, I said at the outset that I understand there’s a majority here. The government has a majority of seats in this Legislature. Do I have any doubt that this bill would pass no matter what? Absolutely, I understand that it’s going to pass. But at least have the public have their ability to come before a committee, and hopefully a committee somewhere out in Ontario where people can come forward and be able to give their view. Who knows what the government is going to do? The government might amend the bill in some way.

I want to give you a couple of examples of what I’ve seen in times when bills used to travel. I remember back in the day, when the Conservatives were in government, they had a particular bill having to do with changes to the Assessment Act. In that particular bill, the government was pretty convinced it was going to do things in a way that they thought was best, but we in the opposition said no.

At that time, it was the third party, New Democrats, a third-place party, who said, “No, we think that this bill should travel,” because we had just gone through a very long debate in this province, through the Peterson years, the Rae years and now into the Harris years, about changing the assessment process.

We had finally landed on a market value system that took some years to develop. This government, in very quick haste, was trying to change it to what they ended up calling “actual value.” Well, there were some problems in what they were doing, and guess what? The committee travelled. I was on that committee, and we went to places like Peterborough, Kingston, Thunder Bay and different parts around the province. Municipal councillors, ratepayers’ associations and others came before the committee and said, “Okay, fine enough. If you’re going to do this, here are some problems with your bill.

If you don’t make the changes, you’re going to have real problems in trying to manage your way through with this bill.”

Guess what happened, Speaker? The government actually amended the legislation, because the public had their chance to have their say. It turned out that—you know what?—sometimes governments get it wrong. Sometimes when people draft bills, especially when they’re drafted in haste, there’s a mistake that’s made in the drafting. We did a number of amendments. We didn’t get all our amendments; I’m not pretending for one second we got them all, but we got some fairly substantive amendments that actually fixed the bill.

Imagine what could happen in this particular case. In this particular bill, there’s a very divided labour movement when it comes to what’s being proposed in

schedule 12 of this bill—right? I got the

section right?

Ms. Cindy Forster:

Schedule 2 of this bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson:

Schedule 2 of this bill. So there are some very divided views as to what this particular legislation is going to do and what it means to workers. There are also some issues about constitutionality. There may be a constitutional challenge. There are a number of other issues and I’ve only got six minutes so I’m not going to get into all of that.

But my point is this: Imagine that in a democracy, that if the government were to say, “Yes, maybe we will allow this bill to go out into committee,” which it is now at, but allow it to be able to go out into the province somewhat so that people can have their say, so that the workers who are affected by this bill on either side—because there are winners and losers in this bill, we understand that. But workers across this province could organize, come before the committee and make their pitch to the committee about why they like this bill and what they like about it, or what they don’t like about this bill and what they would like to see changed.

You never know. You may have a conversion on the way to Damascus, where all of a sudden you decide this democracy thing is not a bad idea. Listening to the public and sometimes doing what the public wants—God knows, it could work. You might all of a sudden find out that it is not a bad thing when democracy is alive and well, the public have their say, and the government has to react to the public. It would be an amazing thing.

If we wonder why the public is showing up in provincial elections less and less so—in the last provincial election, we were in the low fifties, if I remember correctly. In some elections, I think we’ve almost been in the high forties. Why is that? Because over half of the population doesn’t pay attention to what happens in this place; because they say, “Well, they only do what they want. They don’t listen to me. Why should I care?”

I think that’s a wrong attitude. I think you should care, because everything we do here is going to affect you in some way. For that reason, I think the government has to engage with the public and give the public an opportunity to have their say. It doesn’t mean to say that a government—or a Legislature, members of the opposition included—has to do what the public says just because the public says it, but I think you have to have your say.

Imagine, members of the government party, if you were to take the same position in your constituency office that you’re taking by way of time allocation, if somebody comes into your office and you say, “Nope, I don’t want to hear you. Sorry, don’t walk in the door. No, no, I’m not talking to you,” or, “No, I’m not taking your phone call or responding to your email.” How long do you think you would last as an individual member if you didn’t allow people to walk into your constituency office, phone you, send you an email or send you something by way of Twitter or Facebook? You wouldn’t last very long. You’d be hunted out of office.

Well, that’s what you do when you don’t allow the public to have their say when it comes to committee. It doesn’t mean to say that each and every bill has to travel through the province to be heard. No, there are a number of bills that I think the parties can agree on where we don’t have to have a long debate.

For example, there’s an MNO bill that’s coming before this House tomorrow, I believe. The Métis Nation of Ontario has been working for some time in order to get changes done in

an act that would allow the Métis Nation of Ontario to have certain rights that they need in order to operate as an organization. They went to the government. They went to the opposition. A draft bill was done. They gave it to us. We had the government ensure that it was actually tabled, so that the bill that was drafted would be the same as the bill that was tabled—we’ve seen that switcheroonie happen before—and we’re going to pass the bill without spending a lot of time, either in debate or in committee, because the stakeholders are satisfied and the government and opposition are satisfied.

So there are times when bills go through this House and it’s not a thing where you have to send it out into committee. But clearly, when you have bills such as this, where there is a sizable opposition to what the government is doing, I think there’s a responsibility on the part of the government to say, “We’re going to hear you.” It’s just like when people go into Minister Gravelle’s office, or my office in Timmins, or the member from Welland’s in her riding. People have the right to come and see us. They have a right to be heard. It doesn’t mean to say that we have to do what they tell us, but it means we have to hear them.

Why are we not doing that to the public when it comes to bills that are not supported by all the parties? We come here as representatives of the people. The process is that there are members who are elected on both sides of the House. The government side has a responsibility to govern, and we as an opposition have a responsibility to look at what the government is doing and try to amend it if necessary. The process of that is not the second reading debate or the third reading debate; it really is the committee.

That this government is not allowing this bill to go into committee and to travel somewhat, to give the public their opportunity to have their say, I say is a disservice to the people of Ontario, and I think it’s a certain affront to what the people who framed the parliamentary system intended to have happen. Clearly, those who were there before us, in Westminster and other Parliaments around the world and Ontario, framed our standing orders so that the public has a chance to be heard. You do that at the committee level.

This government now has a time allocation motion that we’re debating today that is going to take that bill out of committee tomorrow. It’s going to come into the House and it’s going to have very quick passage, and the public will have to live with the consequences of the decision of the government in that bill. I think that’s wrong. I think the government can have its way at the end, but I think what they at least have is a duty and a responsibility to listen to the people of Ontario and give them an opportunity to be able to have their say. The fact that the government doesn’t want to do that, I think, is a pox on their house.

Kathleen Wynne, the Premier, said she wanted to listen to people; she wanted to have conversations with people. This is not a conversation. This is her hanging up the phone and saying, “Don’t call back, because I’m not listening.”

I think that’s wrong, and that’s why we will vote against this time allocation motion.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have said many times how I feel about time allocation in this House. I’m not going to dwell on that this morning, because time is limited, but we will be voting against this motion.

But I did want to make an announcement in the House this morning. One of the privileges that we have, as members—and I would never want to abuse the privilege—is this opportunity to announce to the world something very, very important, as a member of this Legislature.

Earlier this morning, I spoke to my wife—that’s not an announcement that is news to the world. If it is, I know we’re in big trouble.

Interjections.

Ms. Cindy Forster: What did she say, John?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Did she say, “What do you want? What are you calling about? Why are you calling here?”

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes. But she informed me—and then I received a text from my son-in-law Tommaso, or Tom, Colucci, that our daughter Emily had given birth this morning—

Applause.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes—at 8:33 a.m. in Yellowknife, to a healthy baby boy. I was hoping I’d have more details. I don’t have the weight, and I don’t have a name at this point. I think they’re still negotiating. Nevertheless, it’s a wonderful Christmas present for our family.

Other than our family, I wanted you folks and all these people listening here this morning to be the first to know. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Gravelle has moved government notice of motion number 60, time allocation of Bill 109. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: No further business.

Interjections.

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

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1008 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a pleasure to be here this morning and to welcome some guests from Interactive Ontario. Interactive Ontario is planning its first lobby day here at Queen’s Park. They represent over 300 digital media companies in Ontario.

Today we have with us Carly Beath. She’s the person responsible for operations. We also have Hailey Wronski, Ruth Birman and Jeremy Friedberg.

In rooms 228 and 230, we will have Interactive Ontario setting up shop. Please come by to experience some pretty cool interactive media.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To avoid conflict, we have in the Speaker’s gallery today a former member: from the 36th, 37th and 38th Parliaments, for Don Valley East, Mr. David Caplan.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce, in our gallery this morning, Becky Coles, who is one of the producers at Newstalk 1010. Welcome, Becky.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We have some guests from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East here today: the family of page captain Hannah Dossa. Her mother’s here, and her father, her sister, her grandparents and her great-aunt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of my colleague the member from Ajax–Pickering, I’d like to introduce Frances Grove, Ken Hurst and Janet Swain, who are here with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to introduce Mary Lou Sukman from York–Simcoe, here today to bring attention to PKU day.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Bill Gibson, the area director for Unifor Kitchener-Waterloo. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Bill.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’ve got a lot of guests here in support of Bill 141, the pregnancy and infant loss legislation.

I’ve got John Adams, the former city councillor; his son John Adams Jr.; Michelle Adams and Ryan Adams. John is the president of CanPKU.

I have David Huha, who is here. I also have, all the way from PEI, Evelyn Bell. All the way from Elliot Lake, I’ve got Shannon Bedard and her daughter Faith Bedard. I have Maria Di Gregorio, I have Edna Wright—all the people in support of Bill 141. Thank you for being here.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Frances and Scott Goodfellow from the beautiful riding of Dufferin–Caledon. They’re here to mark PKU day.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’d like to introduce, from the great riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, my former executive assistant and now University of Windsor law student, Tanya Kuzman—T.K. is in the House.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re joined today by the Automotive Industries Association, with President Jean-François Champagne, France Daviault and Jason Kerr, who are joining us in the audience up here today.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent for all members to wear a yellow tie or scarf in recognition of the member for Nipissing’s, Vic Fedeli’s, sartorial consistency.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I reluctantly stand to offer unanimous consent. Do we agree? I heard a no.

I’ll oblige as long as I get co-operation during question period.

The member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Point of order, Speaker: I think it’s only fair to inquire if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is prepared to provide all of the members with a yellow tie or a scarf.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order, so I’ll continue with introductions.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker. “Always fair” is always appreciated.

I would like to introduce a constituent of mine from Beaches–East York: Peter Miller, who’s chair of Interactive Ontario. I look forward to meeting with you during the break.

Mr. Michael Harris: I know that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence welcomed the CanPKU delegation, but as well, here from Don Valley West is Patrick Gillette, representing his three-year-old son. They’re here to protest the government’s decision to ignore expert clinical evidence. I’m going to send it over with a page to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome Deana Ruston from London here to the Legislature today.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to introduce and welcome Glenda Qua from the great riding of Halton.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I just wanted to welcome members of Unifor who are in the members’ gallery today, here at Queen’s Park for their lobby day.

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have the great pleasure of wishing our colleague and friend Ted McMeekin a happy birthday today.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome a Unifor member from London. Her name is Colleen Wake, and she is here today for the second time visiting Queen’s Park. She’s really excited to be here to talk to the Liberal government about their issues.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’m sorry; I forgot. She took the 4 a.m. bus today from London to be here in support of Bill 141: Deana Ruston. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Deana.

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

Before I move on, I do want to ask members for their co-operation in introducing their guests. The least amount of

preamble or post-amble is appreciated. The idea is to just simply take the five minutes to introduce our guests, and that’s where it should stay. I’d appreciate it very much if you would co-operate with that.

Oral Questions

Health care

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. It has been eight years since the government created the LHINs, and for those eight years, the Auditor General has noted that the province has failed to determine or establish a way to judge their performance. Not surprisingly, she has said that it makes it pretty difficult to determine whether they have any value for money. However, we know the minister has promised change.

Mr. Speaker, is the government scrapping the LHINs, or, after eight years of creating them, have they finally figured out what they’re doing?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: This gives me the opportunity to thank the Auditor General for her most recent report, her annual report, that does reference and speak to both our CCACs and LHINS. These recommendations point us in a direction that already builds on the strong accountability and performance measurements that we have in place in our health care system, including through our LHINs. They have a responsibility, as this Legislature knows, to integrate health care across the health care system.

We do know—and the Auditor General has spoken to this—that there is additional work to be done to further strengthen the accountability measures and make sure that we’re measuring the appropriate outcomes as well so that we can continue to improve the quality of care through that important role that the LHINs do play.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier. I appreciate the fact that it seems to be in every Liberal minister’s speaking notes to say, “I thank the Auditor General.” The AG report, if you’ve read the 773 pages, is an indictment of your government.

But I will continue. Whether you live in Moosonee, Milton or Muskoka, the people of Ontario deserve the highest quality of health care across our province. Sadly, the performance levels across Ontario and the 14 LHINs have been substandard. The AG reported that none of the 14 LHINs have ever met all of their targets in 15 areas of performance. But that wasn’t news to the minister. LHIN performance targets are a problem year after year.

The minister’s response to these problems, according to the AG, was to “take little action to hold the LHINs accountable ... when low performance continues.”

If you really want to thank the AG, maybe for once in your time as minister you can actually listen to the Auditor General.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that the PCs, had they been in power today, would have gotten rid of the LHINs and fired the workers. We believe, on this side, the government, that it’s important that health care decisions be taken at the local level, that they be taken in the community, not at Queen’s Park, and that they be taken at a level where we have community representation on local boards making local decisions that apply to local—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s difficult to get control when the side that’s answering is heckling, too.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I’m right to say to the member from Leeds–Grenville: I don’t need an armchair quarterback. Let’s just listen to the answer and listen to the question.

Please finish. You have a wrap-up.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased to quote the AG. She says, “I am pleased to report that” over three quarters “of these actions have either been fully implemented or were in the process of being implemented. I want especially to note the exemplary performance of the Ministry of Education, Ontario Power Generation, ServiceOntario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in implementing recommendations from our audits two years ago.”

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Acting Premier: Based on their responses, I really wonder if they’ve even seen the AG report, because they have a different

interpretation of the AG report compared to everyone in Ontario who’s looked at it, and every single media report.

To the Acting Premier: Ontario has community care access centres. Thanks to the AG, we know that they spend 40 cents of every dollar on administrative costs and CEO salaries. We have two levels of health care bureaucracy that the average patient doesn’t interact with. They interact with personal support workers, nurses and doctors. That’s where funding should go—not an $800-million cut to patient care, not physiotherapy cuts in long-term-care homes.

The AG report makes it very clear that this minister has ignored her previous recommendations. Mr. Speaker, will this government continue to ignore the Auditor General, will it be more spin or will they finally do the right thing and listen to the Auditor General?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, this was the second report this year by the Auditor General that referenced and dealt specifically with our CCACs. As I did in September with her first report, I embraced her recommendations and indicated the commitment of this government to implement every single one of them. We’re working on these latest recommendations as well.

In the very near future, this government will be releasing a discussion paper which speaks specifically to her recommendations and to further changes on top of the 10 changes that I announced and that we’re implementing, responding to the Gail Donner report earlier this year on home and community care. We implemented an action plan focusing on function.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The discussion paper will speak to further needs and further changes that are required to improve the quality of care through home and community care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I move to the new question, the member from Leeds–Grenville: As soon as I said to come to order, you kept going. You’re supposed to stop when I talk to you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Dufferin–Caledon could also come to order.

Long-term care

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Premier: Since I can’t get an answer on the lack of action on the LHINs, let’s talk about long-term care. Ontario’s long-term-care homes provide for the province’s most frail and vulnerable people. They must be held to the highest standard when it comes to residents’ dignity, health and safety.

What have we learned from the Auditor General? We have learned that the backlog of complaints and critical incidents has more than doubled since 2013, during the time of our current Premier.

When will they give the residents of long-term-care homes and their families the peace of mind and security they deserve? This is your mess. This entire fiasco is on your watch. Will you own it? Will you respond to the AG and do something meaningful in regard to long-term care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Associate Minister of Health.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question.

As I said yesterday, we accept the findings and recommendations of the Auditor General and we thank the Auditor General for her work.

I’m pleased to report that we are already implementing her recommendations. First, all outstanding inspections determined as high-risk by the Auditor General have now been completed. Especially important, we are well on our way to implementing her recommendations. Some of these initiatives have been under way for some time, long before the Auditor General’s report came out. For example, we are working with our partners to ensure stronger measures on repeated non-compliance, expanding the number of offence provisions under the current legislation. All this is to say we accept—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier or the minister responsible for long-term care: You may say you’re accepting the Auditor General’s recommendations, but you know who doesn’t believe that? The Auditor General. She says in her report that you’re not taking the advice, you’re not realizing the situation that exists in Ontario.

This backlog isn’t an issue the government can shrug off. Last year, the majority of critical incidents requiring inspections were a result of neglect or abuse. In just one year, that number has increased 90% on your watch. There were 1,750 of those incidents reported in 2014. Our senior citizens—our frail, our vulnerable—deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, why isn’t this government making a priority of this mess? Why is this government not investigating these serious complaints?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Since we’re in the business of quoting the auditor’s report, let me quote something here as well. While we acknowledge what we must do, I am pleased the Auditor General has acknowledged that “the ministry’s new comprehensive inspection process was an improvement over its previous inspection program,” and that the inspection process “is more extensive than those in other provinces.”

It’s a little rich, questions on inspections coming from the opposition, who never even inspected long-term-care homes when they were in power.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: According to the AG’s report, four of the five regional offices had complaints or critical incidents that have been outstanding for more than a year—more than a year. Astonishingly, 65% of cases were closed without inspection and had insufficient information to show why an inspection was not required. And you’re proud of that.

This government has ignored the complaints of families. They simply told them to go away, with no explanation as to why their complaint wasn’t investigated. This is just callous.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve got a loved one in a long-term-care facility, and I would be absolutely livid if there was a serious incident and we complained and there was no investigation. Thank goodness that hasn’t happened in my family, but it’s happened in 65% of the complaints they have had in Ontario.

How can you stand by this? How can you spin your way out of this? This is wrong. Deal with it.

Interjections.

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

Associate minister.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Once again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I said before—let me repeat this: All outstanding inspections—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Let’s keep the battle of the books away.

Carry on.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: As I was saying, all outstanding inspections determined as high-risk by the Auditor General have now been completed. The reason is that we do take our inspection process very seriously. We do take the recommendations of the Auditor General very seriously, and we are working to implement those recommendations. Work has already started.

Again, that’s very rich coming from the opposition, a party that, when they were in power, for long periods of time completely forgot to do any inspections.

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim. The Ontario Auditor General says that seniors are waiting as long as 198 days before they get home care. My question is very simple: What happened to the Liberal commitment to five-day home care?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned before, we’ve had now three important, I would call seminal reports this year alone: Gail Donner at the beginning of the year; two reports now from the Auditor General. I take all of those reports equally as seriously.

The important aspect of these reports is that they provide very specific guidance and recommendations. I’ve embraced and supported and accepted all three of the reports and committed to implementing their recommendations. We are well on our way to implementing many of the recommendations expressed in these reports.

Earlier this year, I released an action plan focusing on improving the quality of care, including addressing the issues referenced by the member opposite. In the coming weeks, I will be issuing a further discussion paper, which will be making significant proposals for change to continue to improve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, our Premier promised she was not going to cut health care, but so far, the track record is quite different. She has fired over 625 nurses this year alone; 150 health care workers in North Bay are receiving pink slips for Christmas; 84 jobs are being cut in the Belleville and Trenton hospitals; on Friday we learned that another 12 jobs are being lost at St. Joseph’s hospital in Hamilton; and the list goes on.

Hospitals from Oshawa to Sarnia to Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie are cutting front-line health care workers because of this government’s funding freeze. But you know what, Speaker? Every one of these cuts hurts patient care.

What happened to the Liberals’ promise not to cut health care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s important to note that the NDP voted against our budget that had $250 million of new money to invest in home and community care. It was the NDP government that—under their watch, as a result of their decisions, there were 3,000 fewer RNs employed in this province, as a result of measures taken by that party when they were in government.

We’ve taken the opposite approach. We’re investing in home care, more than 800,000—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If it starts up, I’ll go to the individual.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There are now 24,000 more nurses employed in this province than there were when we came into office in 2003.

These are important investments. Our commitment to our nursing professionals is there. Our commitment to improving home and community care is as vital as it always has been.

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

M me France Gélinas: Well, over the last few weeks, we’ve heard a lot about “transformation” in the health care sector. The Minister of Health uses that word all the time. So does Ed Clark, the Premier’s privatization adviser and chief Hydro auctioneer.

But what we are really seeing are seniors waiting over 200 days for home care when the Liberals had a commitment to five days; we see nurses being fired when we had a commitment not to cut health care; and we see people who need care who can’t gain access.

When I hear “transformation,” I hear a weasel word. Are deeper cuts and even longer wait-lists—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not parliamentary. Withdraw, please.

M me France Gélinas: I withdraw, Speaker.

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

M me France Gélinas: When I hear “transformation,” I’m wondering, are deeper cuts and even longer wait-lists the sort of transformation the Liberals are planning for us?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we’re doing the opposite of what the member opposite is alleging. We’re increasing our investments in home and community care. We’re increasing the number of visits that are available to Ontarians. Last year alone, our nurses and personal support workers saw 35 million visits across this province. That was 1.3 million more visits than took place the year previous.

We’re increasing our investments in home and community care this year by roughly $250 million, so that we’re spending almost $5 billion. A tenth of the health care budget is being invested in home and community care, where it should be, Mr. Speaker, as it helps us move people out of hospitals into their homes, into their communities where they can be better cared for due to innovations and the supports available, and that’s where they want to be.

Job creation

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Auditor General said that she was concerned about how the Liberal government was handing out job creation dollars without any accountability or without even checking whether the money was needed in the first place.

The question is quite simple: When will the government be appointing the arm’s-length boards and independent advisory committees for the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund and the Eastern Ontario Development Fund?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for that question. It’s a question that I look forward to addressing. But I think it’s important, as well, to recognize when a member asks a question that’s a legitimate question and when sometimes members get up in righteous indignation when they have no right to do so.

I want to compare your question to the question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he got up in righteous indignation. Here’s a member who served in a federal government that supported 3,000 jobs, in partnering with Oakville, through those very same business supports; 8,000 jobs in Guelph through those very same business supports; 8,000 jobs in Cambridge and Woodstock. Where was the righteous indignation then?

But, Mr. Speaker, this takes the cake: I recall being in Barrie at the launch of the data centre, through a partnership with the federal government, and I have a photo of myself, Mayor Lehman and the Leader of the Opposition and his smiling face, cutting a ribbon with us and celebrating our business support programs.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I appreciate that the minister considers my question as legitimate; I would appreciate a legitimate answer to the question.

In 2012, MPPs passed legislation to ensure that the Eastern Ontario Development Fund and the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund would have independent boards, local advisory committees and annual reporting to create much-needed transparency in this House, but the government is refusing to put those sections into law. This is just another example of the government failing on the fundamentals of governance.

After last week’s Auditor General’s report, it’s clear that the government isn’t up to the job of managing job creation in this province and making sure that those funds work for Ontarians. I’ll ask again: When will those independent boards be appointed in this House?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the patience of the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to state something that I was looking forward to saying today.

The member realizes—in fact, we’ve worked with colleagues on his side of the House, as well—that it’s really important that we strike a balance with our regional economic development funds to ensure that we’re responding to those communities in a timely fashion. We’ve worked very closely with local municipalities, including his own area of Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, we have a process that we put in place that is highly accountable. For every dollar invested, there have to be jobs created. If they’re not, those dollars are clawed back or not flowed in the first place. There’s a very stringent process of consideration for these projects. They’re not politically determined in any way. There’s a process that comes through and, Mr. Speaker, I’d be happy to talk a little bit with the member offline about this.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Quite simply, in 2012, this House passed legislation to ensure that the Eastern Ontario Development Fund and the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund had independent boards who would make the choices to ensure that job creation dollars helped families in our communities, not just government friends.

Does the government think that job creation funds need less oversight, less independence, and less transparency?

Interjection.

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: When I spent hours working with this member and talking with this member at estimates—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: —explaining the very stringent process we go to, for him to make those allegations after knowing that we have a very stringent, very accountable process is really not fair at all.

The fact of the matter is that I do not intervene and have not intervened in any recommendation that has come forward through the Eastern Ontario Development Fund or the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. They work their way up through the communities. They’re open funds, and we encourage corporations and companies to make access to them. Communities in southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario are very pleased with the administration of these funds. I suggest that you listen to them as well.

Home care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse for home care patients in Ontario, the Auditor General tabled her report last week that revealed additional concerns about the severely troubled CCACs. What the opposition suspected, and we now know, is that the ministry has done little to address multiple issues that were identified five years ago.

Five years later, some Ontarians are receiving less care because of where they live. Five years later, supports still aren’t available to the friends and families caring for home care clients. In fact, over 12 years, there has been no thorough evaluation of the current CCAC delivery model that ensured CCACs were providing consistent and quality care.

Mr. Speaker, where was the accountability, and why, over the past 12 years, did this government set up CCACs to fail?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question, again, and we acknowledge that there is much more work to be done. I have accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General in her September report, and we’re working on implementing those. We’re working on implementing her recommendations that came out most recently in her annual report.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this work began in earnest earlier this year when we received Gail Donner’s report on home and community care that pointed the way. We accepted each one of her recommendations, turning them into an action plan focusing on the quality of care and the timeliness of providing that care.

I think even the member opposite would agree that we need to continue that transition—because innovations allow us to do so, and the support that we’re able to provide allows us to do so—provide as much of that care as we can in the community and in the home environment. That’s what we’re working to do, and we know that there’s much more work to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: The Auditor General’s report revealed that the number of patients served by CCACs has only increased 20% while spending on home care services has almost doubled.

This government knows that whenever possible, the ideal place to provide care to seniors is in their own home—care that prevents expensive hospital visits and maintains their quality of life. This government has known for quite some time that our senior population will only continue to grow.

The CCACs investigated in this report never allocated the maximum number of home care hours they could because of budget constraints.

Why have the Liberals allowed CCAC bureaucracy to eat up 40% of home care funding year after year?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite is a health care professional, and he knows that in recent years, the patients that he has seen, or would see now, are coming to him with increased complexity of care. That’s what we’re seeing in our home care environment as well. Our ability, fortunately, to address those individuals’ needs, and their families’ and caregivers’ needs, in their home and in their community has increased, but it also requires those important investments, to take advantage of innovations and deliver that quality of care.

That’s why we continue, year after year, to the point where almost $5 billion—10% of the health care budget—is invested in home and community care. That’s going up by $250 million this year, $250 million next year and the year after that. We’re making those changes as pointed out for us by the Auditor General and by Gail Donner’s report. We’re continuing to make those changes to advance the quality of care.

Correctional facilities

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last night was a long and terrible night in Thunder Bay. At the Thunder Bay jail, a correctional officer was taken hostage in a violent takeover of a whole floor of the jail. He was held hostage for four hours, and while his safe release was successfully negotiated and he is physically secure, the dangerous crisis situation went on through the night and took emergency correctional personnel to finally stop. We commend the correctional officers and crisis teams who spent the night trying to keep everyone safe and secure. We know that inmates are again secure as of this morning.

Our jails are plagued by fires, floods, broken cell door locks, understaffing, overcrowding—especially with individuals who haven’t been sentenced—drug overdoses and assaults, riots and routine lockdowns. And now we have had a violent hostage situation. This government keeps corrections out of sight and out of mind. Will the minister now acknowledge there is a crisis in corrections? Will the minister take responsibility for the violent situation in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I can confirm that a correctional officer was taken hostage last night. As a result of successful negotiations, the officer was released. Our thoughts, of course, are with the officer and his family, friends and colleagues at this time.

Our utmost priority throughout this situation was to bring about a peaceful resolution while ensuring the safety of our staff and the public. The incident was confined to the jail; there were no inmate escapes and no threats to the safety of the general public. The circumstances of this incident are under investigation by the police and the ministry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again my question is to the Acting Premier. This morning, correctional staff and parole officers across this province started voting on a contract that, if voted down, will put this province one step closer to a strike or a lockout in our jails. At the same time, it’s being reported that managers will be receiving pay increases.

We know that while jails stay chronically overcrowded and clearly dangerous, the province has built or kept aside bed space for managers in the event of a strike or lockout. The last time there was a lockout, the government used managers from other ministries and departments to staff the jails.

In light of the hostage-taking and crisis in Thunder Bay, does the Acting Premier really want unqualified managers from various ministries like finance, the environment or the Treasury Board running our jails?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The Deputy Premier, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There is a ratification process under way. We will let the collective bargaining process work independently. We do believe that we have arrived at a deal that is both fair to workers and fair to the public.

I have to say that we very much value the work and dedication of our public servants. They do extraordinary work. We rely on their advice, we rely on their professionalism, and we rely on their expertise to help make Ontario the very fine place that it is.

There is a ratification process under way. We will let the members decide, but I have to say, I think this is a good deal for everyone.

Growth planning

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is for the birthday boy, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Appropriate acknowledgement, please.

Interjection: Birthday man.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Withdrawn. Yes, the birthday man.

Climate change is an extraordinarily important issue to my constituents in Beaches–East York. While the Premier is representing our government in Paris at the United Nations climate change conference, here at home we have ongoing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The minister, as part of his mandate, was directed by the Premier to lead the coordinated review of the growth plan and the greenbelt plan, along with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges moraine plan.

Working closely with the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, his goal is to improve the alignment of investments in transit with the planning and development decisions that will create more complete communities across the province. The review is also motivated by key commitments to protect prime agricultural lands in consultation with farmers.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a milestone—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand, you sit.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the member from Beaches–East York.

Several months ago, our government struck a panel led by the Honourable David Crombie to review the four pieces of legislation mentioned. The panel consisted of key agricultural, municipal, environmental and developmental sector expertise.

Yesterday was a milestone for the panel’s work, as they presented their report. Grounded in extensive consultation, through 17 public meetings attended by over 3,500 people, and after receiving over 20,000 individual written submissions, they made 87 recommendations.

The significant participation and feedback is indicative of how much people want to get engaged in building strong, healthy communities. I look forward to having the opportunity to review all those recommendations with my ministry as we—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I very much appreciate the minister’s answer and the great work that he continues to do on this file. The coordinated review has received considerable praise as a shining example of public consultation. The panel and the rest of his team who were involved in this important outreach should feel very proud of the diligent work that was done to date to ensure that Ontarians’ views were heard.

We know that better-planned communities translate into many benefits, including significant savings on infrastructure costs at all levels of government. That means that more money can be spent on transit, health care and education. It also means less driving and less greenhouse gases, to help fight climate change.

Speaker, through you, will the minister tell this House how this report from the Honourable Mr. Crombie will be used?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Again, thank you to the questioner. The credit belongs entirely to the panel, a very esteemed group of people who worked hard together to advise us on how to best combat climate change; protect agricultural lands, water and natural resources; keep people and goods moving; and build healthy communities that will attract workers and jobs.

Our government remains committed to working with municipalities to grow the greenbelt. This report will also help us navigate this important policy area. The report will also aid our government in ensuring that the greater Golden Horseshoe, Canada’s fastest-growing urban region and the province’s economic engine, will be able to accommodate the additional 4. 5 million people expected.

Again, I thank the panel, a very esteemed group, for their great work. I look forward to working with Mr. Crombie and others as we move forward.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The associate minister stated in this House last week that she was building nursing home beds. She claimed she put new beds in Thunder Bay, Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that she didn’t put 500 beds in Thunder Bay. The news release talks about home care but not nursing home beds. As for Waterloo-Wellington, they’ve actually seen a decrease in the rate of long-term-care beds per senior citizen. As for Windsor, the minister is rehashing a 2011 announcement. The truth is, 2,000 seniors remain without access to a bed. The associate minister needs to own up to her mistake and withdraw the erroneous statements.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask: Will she correct her statement, show accountability and immediately release the

schedule of all nursing home bed developments in Ontario?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the member opposite for his question.

I’m going to reiterate the fact that we continue to invest in long-term-care beds here in Ontario. That is why we’ve added 10,000 beds and counting since we came to office and we have redeveloped 13,000 beds.

I’m going to give you some—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I sit, I’ll wait for the person who tries to get one in.

Carry on.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to give a recent example. This is from the Village at University Gates in Waterloo. I was there at the opening on October 30, but it’s been in operation for some time. That’s 192 new beds. That’s an example of the beds we are investing in.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the associate minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

I seem to have been challenged. As soon as I asked him to be quiet, he did it again. The second time for the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: I reiterate: Where? With all due respect, this is pure humbug. You’re not going to build any new long-term-care nursing home beds. Is the associate minister even aware that this government has not issued a single announcement on nursing home beds in four years?

This is why her second statement from last week is the one that really takes the cake: “But we are not resting on our laurels.” We “have also added beds in Oshawa.” That’s just callous. The Oshawa-Whitby facility was built to replace the one that burned down in a fire in 2014 and houses the same residents displaced by that fire.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been failing our sick and frail seniors for 12 years. Through you to the associate minister, I ask: Why make erroneous statements? Why won’t you just admit that you have no intention of building any new nursing home beds?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Let me just address the issue of humbug. I would like the member opposite to ask his own colleagues who were there at the opening of the Waterloo long-term-care residence if they thought it was humbug: colleagues such as Michael Harris, representing Kitchener–Conestoga, or Ted Arnott, representing Halton Hills. They were there representing their constituents. You should ask them if they think it’s humbug.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ll get your first.

New question.

Trucking safety

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question today is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday we learned that less than 8% of the trucks on our roads receive safety inspections each year, and of the trucks that do receive inspections, roughly 25% of them fail.

In 2008, the Auditor General revealed serious flaws in our commercial vehicle inspection system. Seven years later, it looks like little has changed. Why does the government knowingly risk the safety of Ontarians by allowing so many unsafe trucks onto our roads?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Niagara Falls for his question. I think one thing he would know—because I’ve said it many times here in the chamber and beyond the chamber—is that over the last 13 years, the province of Ontario has ranked first or second across all of North America for road and highway safety. That’s first or second across all categories. But in particular, over the last number of years, the amount of large truck traffic on Ontario’s highways has risen dramatically, and in that same period, the number of fatalities involving large trucks has dropped precipitously.

When we take into account all of these factors, road and highway safety is of paramount concern to this government. It’s a crucial part of my mandate. We will continue to work with the industry and we will continue to work with all partners to make sure that we are delivering road and highway safety for the people of Ontario, as they expect and deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your answer. But as you know and everybody in this House knows, because we spoke about it, the roads last year in Ontario were unsafe to drive on. You know it and everybody else knows it.

Minister, there is a pattern here. This government cuts costs and then it cuts corners. In the past few months, we have learned about the serious flaws with Ontario’s privatized truck drivers’ examination centres. We have known for years that privatized winter road maintenance is a mess. Seven years after the AG’s report, we are again seeing serious flaws with the commercial vehicle inspection system.

When will this government stop cutting corners and endangering Ontarians by restoring proper oversight on the safety of our highways? Our kids and our grandkids deserve no better.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I think the member opposite meant “no less.” I’d be happy to help him with his questions in the future, I suppose.

To be really clear about this, Speaker, I know it might not fit with the opposition’s narrative around these issues, but the results are clear. I couldn’t be any more clear about this: For 13 years in a row, the roads and highways in this province have ranked first or second in North America in terms of road and highway safety. I said that earlier; I’ll continue to say that.

We have to remember, as well, that between 2002 and 2011—I said this earlier—we have seen the number of fatalities involving large trucks decline by 41%.

Each and every single year, the Ministry of Transportation’s enforcement officers conduct more than 110,000 commercial inspections annually.

Working together, for all of these reasons, we continue to deliver the road and highway safety in this province that the people deserve.

Forest industry

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The forestry sector is an important industry for our province, employing nearly 170,000 people and generating more than $11 billion for Ontario’s economy. Trade with the United States is significant to this sector, generating exports valued at close to $5 billion and accounting for as much as 95% of Ontario’s forestry and wood product manufacturing exports.

Recently, the nearly decade-long softwood lumber agreement between the US and Canada expired. Discussions about this agreement and any future softwood lumber trade agreements between the governments of Canada and the United States will have a significant effect on Ontario’s forestry sector.

Speaker, can the minister tell us about the current status of the softwood lumber agreement?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for this question.

The softwood lumber agreement is obviously very important to us here in our ministry, and to the forest products sector in Ontario. The agreement, first penned in 2006, expired in 2013. There have been two subsequent one-year extensions of that agreement. It is fully expired as of October of this year.

We now find ourselves in a situation contained in the original 2006 agreement that is referred to as a standstill period. What that means is that there is about one year of what would be considered to be free trade between Ontario as a forest products exporter and the United States, where they have agreed in the 2006 agreement not to import any duties or taxes on the exporting industry in Ontario. This is a period of time where we need to be vigilant, to be working towards the new agreement. We are reaching out to our federal partners, who are obviously the lead on the file, seeing what we can do to prepare ourselves for the end of the standstill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Minister, for the update on the current status of the process. It’s important that this is a priority for you and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I’m satisfied that it is.

It’s also clear that this agreement is complex and complicated to negotiate. At the same time as negotiations move along, issues may develop in a rapid manner. This will require that Ontario be prepared to quickly respond to requests for information and proposals.

Can the minister tell us how his ministry is working with the industry, other levels of government and other stakeholders to ensure continued access to the important US market for our softwood lumber products?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for the question.

We have spent a great deal of time in our ministry reaching out to industry on this particular file. There are three major softwood lumber exporters in the province of Ontario: Resolute, Eacom and Tembec. Of course, there are others in the industry who export into the market, but they are the three biggest players. Most of their product does go to the US.

We’ve also been in contact with Ontario’s trade reps in Washington and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have done outreach to our federal counterparts. We’re looking to sit down as soon as we can with our new federal ministers who have their hands on this file. As I mentioned earlier, they are the lead, but we will do everything that we can to ensure that Ontario’s interests are represented in federally led negotiations with our American partners on this.

We understand fully the importance of this industry to Ontario, and we understand very clearly the importance of this industry to northern Ontario specifically. We’ll do everything that we can to represent their interests.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program / Programme de médicaments de l’Ontario

Mrs. Gila Martow: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: We are joined in the gallery today by patients and their families suffering from a brain-threatening disease called PKU.

Comme le ministre le sait, la PCU est une maladie héréditaire métabolique trouvée dans environ un de chaque 12 000 nouveau-nés au Canada. Le seul traitement approuvé, Kuvan, a été approuvé en avril 2010, et ce gouvernement l’a classé en 2013.

Amazingly, five years later, not one single Ontario patient has gained access to Kuvan due to this government’s highly restrictive criteria. En fait, les trois seuls qui ont appliqué pour le traitement ont été rejetés. Today we learned that one of the advocates has actually filed a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons because of frustration with this government’s mishandling of the file.

Let me say it again: Not one single patient has received a treatment that government officials have approved. Est-ce que cela vous semble juste?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I think the member opposite knows that we took the politics out of funding drugs in this province. Our decisions on which drugs to fund are based on science and evidence.

In the case of Kuvan, in 2011, the national Common Drug Review issued a do-not-list recommendation for the drug. Twice the province reviewed Kuvan, both reviews resulting in a do-not-list recommendation. But despite three negative recommendations, Ontario, since February 2013, has been funding, through our Exceptional Access Program, Kuvan on a case-by-case basis. The criteria for funding were established with input from the manufacturer and from clinicians who treat PKU.

In June of this year, the manufacturer, BioMarin, informed the ministry that they now intend to file a resubmission to the Common Drug Review. We look forward to seeing that submission and reviewing it for the fourth time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the minister: I think the point here is that the criteria are too difficult. The government knows that two years ago, all of Ontario’s specialists who treat PKU wrote to the government to express their concerns with the criteria. Ils ont même fourni des révisions suggérées pour aider à assurer que les patients reçoivent le traitement dont ils ont tellement besoin. Mais à ce jour, le conseil des experts et les preuves cliniques ont été ignorés.

Today we learned that those same specialists have again written to you to express their continued frustration at the lack of Kuvan access in Ontario.

Je vais avoir un page législatif livrer au ministre la preuve médicale qui soutient l’appel pour modifier les critères, les preuves que le département de santé a choisi d’ignorer.

We have asked before: Will this government commit today to revise the criteria so these patients can receive the treatment they desperately need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I do want to acknowledge the advocates and patients who are here today. This is an incredibly challenging and life-threatening illness.

Saskatchewan is the only other Canadian jurisdiction to list Kuvan with precisely the same criteria as Ontario. BC chose not to list the drug. Quebec funds maternal PKU, which is the case in Ontario as well. This indication is also covered in Ontario, and Quebec considers other requests on a case-by-case basis.

Alberta was identified by advocates as funding. We found out that this was through a temporary disability program. Alberta no longer funds PKU. It’s not funded in the UK. It’s not funded in New Zealand.

We need to be consistent, take the politics out of this and make our decisions based on science and good evidence. Notwithstanding that, we have made this drug available on an exceptional-access basis to those individuals who truly do need it and where it has been proven to be beneficial.

Hospital funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. This morning, Londoners learned that 500 surgeries in our local hospitals will be cancelled, to be rescheduled at a later date. This means that 500 patients who have already been waiting in pain for up to two years will be forced to wait even longer.

One of my constituents, Brian Peck, was told in November 2014 that he needed a hip replacement, but it may not be scheduled until the end of 2016. He is using a walker and has already fallen three times because of his hip. The surgeon says he will probably be in a wheelchair by the time he gets the surgery.

The hospitals say they’ve run out of money; the LHIN blames the hospitals for booking too many surgeries.

My question is: Who in this Liberal government is looking out for patients, for these 500 people in London who are now facing a health care crisis?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: This is obviously an extremely important issue. We have an expectation, both through our LHINs and the hospitals directly, that they continue to work together closely, not only within the fiscal framework provided to them but in a manner, importantly and critically, that maintains and enhances the quality of care that’s provided for those who depend on that resource. So our expectation in this, as in all cases, is that patient care will not be impacted.

I do need to point out that our funding to the London Health Sciences Centre has risen by 72% over the last decade, an increase of more than $316 million. We have a commitment to make sure that that level of service that the individuals in London and the London area deserve is available and provided to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Acting Premier: Wait times are already longer in London than in other parts of the province, and surgeries in our hospitals keep getting cancelled.

In March, I stood up in this House and I asked the minister to stop the cuts to elective surgeries that month. The minister refused. Now it’s happening again. Some 500 patients in London will wait even longer for surgery because this Liberal government failed to do its job.

Will this Liberal government take responsibility and stop the latest cuts to surgeries, or will the Acting Premier make more excuses and force 500 patients to wait even longer? Which is it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I do remember distinctly when the member opposite raised this about a year ago, or just under a year ago. In that case, it was her assumption that these were cuts or somehow unpredictable. In fact, they were part of regularly scheduled closures of the OR that occur in a number of hospitals—or is reduced in a number of hospitals—over the holiday season.

In this case, I will certainly investigate what the particulars of this allegation are, but I do maintain my commitment and responsibility to ensure that the quality of care provided through that hospital, as others, throughout the province is maintained, and I will be following up directly with the hospital as well as with the LHIN.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Ontario has a rich and long mining heritage that has created wealth and helped to build our province into what it is today. But every now and then, in communities across Ontario, there are former mine sites that need to be rehabilitated. I’m proud to be a member of a government that understands that cleaning up these sites helps to protect the environment as well as the health and well-being of all Ontarians.

Would the Minister of Northern Development and Mines share with this House how our government continues to ensure that our environment is protected and that abandoned mine sites are cleaned up?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That’s just a great question—a very timely question—from the member from Sudbury, obviously a great advocate for the mining industry, but a very strong advocate for the environment as well, and much appreciated.

The truth is, our government takes the health and safety of all Ontarians very, very seriously. That’s why we’re committed, through the Abandoned Mines Rehabilitation Program, to ensure that abandoned mines are indeed rehabilitated.

Since the beginning of the Abandoned Mines Rehabilitation Program, we’ve undertaken rehabilitation on 80 of the highest-priority abandoned mine sites located throughout the province. This work demonstrates our very strong commitment to a sustainable mining industry that works to ensure the protection of the environment and provides substantive and sustainable benefits to our residents and our communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’m certainly pleased to hear the minister speak to the important work our government is doing to ensure abandoned mine sites located throughout Ontario are cleaned up to protect our natural environment.

The Abandoned Mines Rehabilitation Program is an integral part of Ontario’s Mining Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Since 2003, the government has invested in this program, and communities across Ontario are seeing the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How is our government protecting the environment while ensuring the mining industry is properly prepared to fulfill their duty to rehabilitate their mining sites?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I’m very grateful because, quite frankly, I don’t think there’s enough known about this incredibly important program.

Since 2003, our government has allocated over $100 million to the Abandoned Mines Rehabilitation Program. It has supported the rehabilitation of mine sites in many communities; certainly the Kam Kotia site outside Timmins is a great example, and Bancroft, Sudbury and many other locations, as well.

We are very committed to the protection of the environment by ensuring that all mining projects also obtain necessary provincial environmental approvals and permits, and that the appropriate consultation with the public and, of course, aboriginal communities takes place. That’s incredibly important and we are very committed to that.

Under the Mining Act, mining companies must submit closure plans and rehabilitation plans to our ministry—again, something that I don’t think is well-known by the public—

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

New question.

Health care

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Residents in northeastern Ontario didn’t need the Auditor General to tell us that the LHIN has done a terrible job of delivering health care. But thanks to the auditor—she has confirmed what northerners are feeling.

The North East LHIN was tied for the worst in the province, meeting just four of the 15 targets. They are worst in alternate-level-of-care days, second-worst in wait times for CCAC in-home services, and they’re one of only two LHINs not meeting the target of providing cancer care surgery within 84 days. The ineptness of the North East LHIN is nothing new; it’s just sad to see that it still continues.

I ask the Deputy Premier, what is her plan to improve health care