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

October 8, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-08 (PDF)

L107 - Thu 8 Oct 2015 / Jeu 8 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 8 October 2015 Jeudi 8 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of Toronto Blue Jays paraphernalia

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Agriculture industry

Privatization of public assets

International trade agreement

Domestic violence

International trade agreement

Youth services

Doctors’ fees

Child care

Pay equity

Victims of crime

Services for the developmentally disabled

Health care funding

Hospice care

Legislative pages

Use of electronic devices in House

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

National Family Week

Healthy eating

Ontario Agriculture Week

Hydro rates

Do Good Divas

Aurora Seniors Association

PANDAS/PANS

Nation Leagues

Taste of Streetsville

Reports by Committees

Comité permanent de la justice / Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Genetic Characteristics), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant le Code des droits de la personne (caractéristiques génétiques)

Petitions

Student safety

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mental health and addiction services

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Taxation

Protection de l’environnement

Missing persons

Water fluoridation

By-election in Sudbury

Alzheimer’s disease

Lung health

Private Members’ Public Business

Special Interest Groups Election Advertising Transparency Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la transparence de la publicité électorale des groupes d’intérêt particulier

Infrastructure program funding / Financement des infrastructures

Agriculture and food literacy / Sensibilisation à l’agriculture et aux produits agricoles

Special Interest Groups Election Advertising Transparency Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la transparence de la publicité électorale des groupes d’intérêt particulier

Infrastructure program funding / Financement des infrastructures

Agriculture and food literacy / Sensibilisation à l’agriculture et aux produits agricoles

Special Interest Groups Election Advertising Transparency Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la transparence de la publicité électorale des groupes d’intérêt particulier

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Mr. Flynn moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate today—kick off the debate, actually—for second reading of Bill 109, which is formally titled the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I’d like to take the opportunity to let you know that I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, Mr. Mike Colle, the best parliamentary assistant anyone could have.

I’d also like to take this opportunity on behalf of all in this province to express our sincere gratitude to the firefighters and all front-line health and safety workers who risk their own lives and their own safety to protect the lives of others every day. They believe in the concept of public service; they don’t do that work for the glory of the headlines. I don’t think that the heroism they demonstrate day in and day out has gone unnoticed or unappreciated by the people in this House. I—and I think all Ontarians, for that matter—cannot thank those men and women enough.

This is one of the reasons we are proposing changes to three pieces of legislation which will, if they become law, provide increased fairness to all workers across Ontario by strengthening protections, enhancing compensation and ensuring that broader public sector transitions can go as smoothly as possible, while still balancing the democratic rights of workers.

Speaker, if passed, this bill would amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act of 1997; it would also amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of 1997; and, finally, the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act of the same year, 1997.

I’d like to talk first, briefly, about the proposed amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. As I said previously, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence will go into further detail on the other two amendments to the other two acts—the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, shortly.

Bill 109 is going to provide much greater safeguards to all workers in the province through making changes to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Our first proposed amendment to the act being given second reading this morning is driven by our commitment to protect injured workers and their right to file a claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in this province. Workers in this province should know that it is their right to file a WSIB claim, and that their right will be protected.

The amendments that we’re debating today would prohibit employers from taking any actions against any worker with the intent of discouraging that worker from filing a claim or influencing a worker to withdraw or abandon a claim for benefits for either work-related injuries or for illnesses. Those claims would be made with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The proposed amendments would also enable the WSIB to prosecute and to impose administrative penalties when employers try to impede or try to suppress those claims. This would strengthen the WSIB’s efforts by legislating much stronger deterrence against employers engaged in any activities that would suppress or impede the right that injured workers have, in this province, to report a work-related injury or illness to the WSIB. The proposed amendment would also enable the WSIB to prosecute and impose administrative penalties when employers try to impede or suppress claims.

Speaker, to make sure that our laws are respected and that workers are protected, we are proposing an increase in the maximum corporate penalties for conviction of an offence under the WSIA from $100,000 to $500,000. Not reporting a workplace incident or accident is a violation of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The WSIB has a zero-tolerance policy and strategy that prevents claim suppression in this province. When a person commits an offence under the WSIA, the WSIB may then lay charges and prosecute.

The bill would also mandate, by statute, that the WSIB board of directors appoint what is called a fair practices commissioner, and that would be an organizational ombudsperson for the WSIB. The fair practices commission is an independent, neutral and confidential resource for injured workers, for employers and for service providers. It should be noted that its services are free of charge. These services could include looking into individual complaints, tracking complaint trends, identifying system-wide issues within the organization and, finally, recommending improvements to the WSIB itself.

By legislatively requiring a fair practices commissioner, what we’ll be doing is ensuring the commission’s stability and longevity over time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 109 would also enable the WSIB to calculate survivor benefits based on the average earnings of a worker who is engaged in the same profession as the one in which the deceased received his or her injury. The issue, really, addresses how the WSIB calculates survivor benefits for a worker who dies of an occupational disease who had no or perhaps low earnings on the date of the diagnosis because they had retired from work. This situation could arise because of the long latency period before the onset of many work-related diseases, such as cancer.

Currently, in situations where a worker dies of an occupational disease and had no earnings at the time of that diagnosis, the board’s operational practice today is to calculate survivor benefits based on the average annual earnings of a worker engaged in the same trade in which the worker’s disease was contracted. Speaker, the proposed amendment before you today would allow the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to continue the practice that is in place and enshrine it in legislation. I think it’s a fair amendment and one that is overdue.

The proposed amendments would apply to payments for survivor benefits that are payable as of January 1, 1998, which was the date upon which the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, actually came into effect. What we are doing with Bill 109 and the amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act is protecting in a much greater way the people of this province who work, and ensuring that they have the ability to avail themselves of the rights they have as workers in this province to obtain coverage under the WSIB without any interference or undue interference from employers.

Speaker, the amendments are based on the principles of fairness, balance and justice, and, if passed, will be important changes to the legislation we already have in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, Ontario is one of the safest places in the world to work. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better; it does mean that we will do better. From time to time still, Ontario workers are injured on the job or, in the awful instances that we hear of from time to time, they actually lose their life on the job. Often that takes place as a result of a traumatic injury. But it can also be an illness that is contracted and doesn’t appear for years; it just goes through a latent period and then the worker becomes aware that something has happened years back and they need coverage for that.

These changes are long overdue. I hope they enjoy the support of all members of the House. We’ve tried to introduce them in a way such that I think all Ontarians will understand this is a fair way to do it, it’s a balanced way to do it and it’s a responsible way to do it.

Certainly it has been formulated with much consultation with the WSIB itself, which is an organization that I think over the past few years has done tremendous things in the services it provides for injured workers and is also, I think, enjoying a good reputation with the employers of this province for providing good value, ensuring that workers get the treatment they receive, ensuring that they get it at the right time and ensuring that the unfunded liability that has plagued this organization in years past is reduced, as the Provincial Auditor asked that it be.

Speaker, my parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Labour, Mike Colle, will now speak to the other elements of the bill, which include further details, as I spoke of earlier, on the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, as well as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act. I hope that all members of the House will see fit to support this bill when it comes to a vote.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you to the minister for bringing this very comprehensive series of reforms forward for the people of Ontario, especially those who are injured on the job, and for those who have dangerous jobs, like our firefighters and our first responders. I know the minister is very proactive in listening and acting on recommendations brought forward by all the partners in labour in Ontario: the employers, the workers, the unions, all the experts who are out there. This is a culmination of all that ongoing discussion that the minister really takes a lot of time to do.

So this came forward as a result of all these discussions and proposals put forward. Bill 109 amends, as the minister said, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act from 1997, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and also the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, which is a complex piece of legislation but is another needed amendment.

I was talking to the executive director of the construction association of Ontario yesterday. He was saying that there’s just a time for all of us, whether we’re workers, employers or ordinary citizens, to slow down sometimes and ensure that we consider the safety aspect of work. All of us assume that buildings are going to be built, hospitals are going to be built, roads are going to be repaired, critical hydro infrastructure is going to be kept up to speed, and we all want it done yesterday.

We’re in such a hurry to have this work done, we forget that the workers out there are sometimes in a very precarious situation. We must all put in our culture of work, I think, this big “S” of safety. Certainly workers know it is critical to work in a methodical, safe way, because they are risking their lives.

I think there are 250 cranes in the sky in Toronto. Imagine how dangerous that kind of work is, the responsibility the company has that maintains the equipment, the workers who operate it, the workers and the public in the surrounding area. We just basically think that’s automatic. Well, it isn’t automatic. It’s just like the 1.5 million people who travel on public transit every day in Toronto, and probably another million in the greater Toronto area. The public transit alone—the buses, the trains, the GO system—is very technical, precarious work at times.

We’ve got to ensure that our bus drivers, train operators, mechanics, maintenance workers—everybody—is given the proper support in ensuring safety. Safety, safety, safety: It is not automatic. That’s what this bill tries to support: the whole idea that people do get hurt on the job, sad to say, but they need protection.

As the minister said, in some cases the injury is latent. I think of Johns Manville in Scarborough. All those workers worked for decades with asbestos. They didn’t know that they were basically contracting cancer, and the cancer didn’t appear till decades later. That’s what happens in many workplaces. You think the workplace is safe, but there may be an air quality problem, there may be some kind of work procedure that causes an injury that comes after the fact. That’s one of the things this act tries to change, to protect workers who receive these injuries after the fact. They could be retired.

I know that firefighters have been bringing that forward for years. They’ve been saying, “We’ve attended all these fires. Sometimes they’re chemical fires.” Then, after a number of years, there is a frightening series of firefighters who have cancer, and they all say, “Well, listen, we didn’t know at the time. It could have been the result of those fires we had to deal with 10 years ago.” These are some of the protections we’re putting in place with Bill 109.

As I mentioned in this reference to firefighters, whom we are further protecting in this legislation, in my own riding of Eglinton–Lawrence just this summer we had our annual Marlee-Ville Festival, on Marlee Avenue. One of the participants at the festival suffered a seizure. We think it was a diabetic seizure. Luckily, the gentleman didn’t hit his head on the concrete sidewalk when he collapsed. Right away we called 911, and the first responders there were the firefighters. They came 10 minutes before the ambulance.

As a result of that quick response by our firefighters, through heavy traffic—it was about 5 o’clock—that individual was put on the ambulance, which came later, rushed to hospital and saved, I’m sure, a lot of grief going forward.

We also had a massive, potentially dangerous, fire on Castlefield Avenue a year ago, when a foam mattress factory burned down. It was a multi-alarm fire. Firefighters were hundreds of feet up on their ladders trying to put out this fire to ensure that it didn’t spread. They did an amazing job. They protected the surrounding properties—the neighbourhood—and no one got hurt. It was a pretty complex, precarious fire incident. This is what is done every day, and these are the everyday dangers our workers face, especially our firefighters and first responders. This bill tries to remedy that with more protecttions.

As we say, our ongoing efforts to help, especially workers who work in dangerous situations—and it could be any worker. It could be people who seem to have so-called inside office jobs; they could be in a dangerous situation. People who work in construction, people who work in mines—every day there are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who need to be protected.

According to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, there are 11,000 full-time firefighters and 19,000 volunteer firefighters. That’s a lot of people who are out there trying to protect us every day. Our legislation here, Bill 109, would provide the Fire Protection and Prevention Act with new substantive procedural and enforcement provisions, so there are going to be new enforcement provisions in this bill. These amendments would bring the Fire Protection and Prevention Act into greater and more natural alignment with the Labour Relations Act.

In other words, a lot of the workplace rules of safety and protection that the firefighters work under—up until this proposed bill, if passed—aren’t under the Labour Relations Act. What this bill is doing is taking a lot of those activities that come under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act and folding them into the Labour Relations Act. That’s a significant change. Therefore, what we’re really doing is putting a lot of the practices that normal workers enjoy under the Labour Relations Act, as also applicable to firefighters. Before, it was separate. That’s one of the most significant things that Bill 109 is doing.

By doing that, what we are really doing, hopefully, is reducing the need to go to court to get remedial action. As you know, Mr. Speaker, courts can be very lengthy, very expensive, very complex and very adversarial. But by putting a lot of these activities in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act under the Labour Relations Act, we are going to hopefully reduce the need of appealing to our judicial system, which will save time, money and effort.

The proposed amendments would enhance the Fire Protection and Prevention Act by adding very similar key legislative provisions already available to those covered by the Labour Relations Act. These are some of the key provisions where the Fire Protection and Prevention Act will now be covered by the Labour Relations Act:

—unfair labour practice protections;

—expedited grievance arbitration;

—union security and related provisions;

—religious objections;

—Ontario Labour Relations Board authority to enforce all provisions under

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act;

—the power of an arbitrator to enforce a written settlement of a grievance, and the ability of the parties to file an arbitration decision in the Superior Court of Justice and have it enforced as an order of that court; and

—the power of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to grant interim orders.

All of these existing provisions in the Ontario Labour Relations Act will now also be folded into—or vice versa—the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. These are significant changes.

As we all concur, in this province we all appreciate the incredible efforts of our firefighters in communities all across Ontario. I think these changes will certainly protect them even further in their workplace.

The third element of Bill 109 consists of legislative amendments to the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, which was passed in 1997. Under these proposed amendments, when an event in the broader public occurs to which the act applies, such as certain amalgamations or restructurings, if a prescribed minimum percentage of employees in the new bargaining units are represented by the same union, that union would be ordered to be the bargaining agent for the new unit without a representation vote.

As happened in Toronto, we had the amalgamation of the six cities and boroughs into one; we had it done in Ottawa; we had it in Hamilton; we had it in the Lindsay area—Kawartha Lakes. When you bring those entities together, the workers and their contracts and their protections and union arrangements all of a sudden are affected by these amalgamations. What this amendment here does is try to accommodate the reality of unions so we don’t go through a long process of reconfiguring the associations that are already in existence. It just streamlines that so we don’t get these long, drawn-out confrontations when changes are made administratively by amalgamations in this province.

We have been told, as the minister has said, that such a change would help to reduce time and disruption during events such as mergers. Speaker, as you know, our government is committed to advancing safe, fair and respectful workplaces. That’s why these amendments have come forward in Bill 109. We’re trying to increase the level of fairness by strengthening protections for all of these workers, and we will ensure that the broader public sector transitions go as smoothly as possible, while still balancing the democratic rights of workers.

Strengthening protections for workers while supporting business is part of the government’s plan to build a stronger Ontario. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the critical thing is to have this partnership, this combined effort, whether it be an employer, whether it be workers, whether it be their unions, to make this province a province that works for people, provides services for people and protects people. So it’s not that the government can do this by itself. The government needs those partners to consult, to collaborate and to make improvements.

It is not a static thing. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act was brought forward in this Legislature in 1997. It is an updating of that as a result of these ongoing consultations and suggestions made by workers, by unions, by employers. We’ve tried, with this legislation, to strike a balance. It is never possible, and the pages on their last day should know this: You could never please everybody. It’s just like your mother can’t please all the kids in the family, nor can government ever please everyone. But you try to be fair.

I know that in Hamilton they tried to call themselves the “fair” city of Hamilton. In other words, you can’t give everybody everything they want but you try to give people everything they need to the best of your ability. In this legislation, whether it’s in Hamilton, whether it’s in Ottawa, whether it’s in Peterborough, we try to ensure, whether you’re a firefighter, you’re a factory worker or you’re someone providing a service, big or small, that there are these protections in the workplace safety act that will ensure that you get a fair shake.

God forbid, if you are injured on the job, if you develop an illness—in this bill we also try to amend the procedures around survivor’s benefits. Those are very complex areas, because if that person, sadly—the partner or the husband or wife—passes away on the job, the survivor’s benefits pension is critically important. The way that’s handled could affect the life of that survivor, plus the family, so we need to do these things in a way that is compassionate, comprehensive and fair.

That’s what’s in Bill 109. It is an area of legislation that has responded to the requests by various stakeholders, our firefighters, by municipalities, by employers, to try and update some of these acts that were brought in in 1997. I just hope that the members from all sides will come up with further ideas on how we can strengthen this, how we can take into account all the complexities and make this a good piece of legislation.

I look forward to everyone participating in this debate, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the relatively brief remarks by the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence. I think it’s fair to point out that the government actually has 60 minutes for its lead-off speech and they chose to use about 30 minutes, but maybe that gives more time to the opposition, so we appreciate that, I guess, in one sense.

Both Liberal speakers gave an interesting presentation about the bill, but I think there could have been perhaps more information about what the bill actually does. Certainly I appreciate the opportunity to have met with some of the minister’s staff earlier this week for a briefing that I requested on the bill that I would have hoped might have been offered, but I had requested it and they responded and we’ve had a chance to begin the dialogue. Our caucus is very interested in Bill 109 and want to ensure that it’s thoroughly debated.

I want to express my appreciation to the minister for his quick message of congratulations when I was appointed our party’s labour critic and his willingness to have a more comprehensive briefing, which we’re getting together to do this afternoon. So that’s forthcoming, and I appreciate that.

But I would have to say that in neither speech did we hear any information about what this bill is going to cost. Surely there has been a comprehensive and detailed financial analysis of what impact these changes will have, particularly on WSIB premiums. As we know, employers pay the premiums, and that’s an ongoing concern of the business community. They want to make sure that they’re getting good value for their money and that the system is being administered well and fairly, but they are also interested in premiums.

I know that the great work that has been done by the current chair and her management team at the WSIB has resulted in no increase in premiums in the last year or two, and that’s a good thing. But I would ask the minister in his response, or his parliamentary assistant, to explain to the House: What is the impact on premiums and/or what is going to be the impact on the unfunded liability of the WSIB as a result of Bill 109?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to have the chance to weigh in a little bit on Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour. I look forward to, later in the debate, weighing in a little bit longer than the two minutes, certainly after we’ve had a chance to hear from our labour critic, who I know is going to have many thoughts to share. And as we heard from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence that he’s looking forward to other members offering ideas to make this stronger and the best bill that it can be, I am sure you will be hearing lots and lots from the opposition in terms of ways to strengthen and improve this.

I see the three major sections in this bill, and I’ll just take a minute and 10 seconds to address the third section, which is familiar in that, three weeks before Bill 109 hit the table here, I introduced my Bill 98. I appreciated everyone’s support for that in that discussion on protecting the victims of occupational disease.

What I see in this bill, while some parts align, is that it’s only half of what my bill was intending to do, and I think we agreed that the spirit of that, we all were in support of. I know that I’m looking forward to bringing forth those ideas and making sure that the voices of workers don’t get lost in the shuffle.

Bill 109 addresses

section 48 of the WSIA,

whereas mine was 48 and 43. That

section 43, where we’re looking at workers and what they are entitled to, I really think warrants full discussion. We need to move forward because, as the Minister of Labour said, these diseases may be contracted, but they don’t appear for years. It shouldn’t be when it’s diagnosed; it should be when the injury actually occurred. So I look forward to having these discussions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to rise in my place in the Legislature this morning and add my voice to those of the Minister of Labour, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and the member from Oshawa, of course a significant defender of workers’ rights, with a great private member’s bill that she has put forward; and of my colleague the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

This is an important piece of legislation on so many fronts—two minutes won’t do it justice—but the modernization of our statute is long overdue. We’ve had significant input from stakeholders. I want to applaud the Minister of Labour for his work and his response to those calls for modernization.

Why is that important? Because it will provide greater tools and access to resolve disputes. As the member from Eglinton–Lawrence noted, keeping things out of the court is in everybody’s interest. It lowers expense and just makes greater sense. That’s an important step forward.

Ensuring that our broader public sector transitions go smoothly, and as smoothly as possible, to create that kind of efficiency and stability that we all want and need is really important. Of course, the bottom line is that providing a fair, just and efficient workers’ compensation system is something we all want.

I want to just take a minute and talk about the strengthening as regards the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. You know, Speaker, we all enjoy and actually really are blessed by the hard-working firefighters that we have in this province. Burlington is no exception. We have a tremendous group of men and women who put their lives on the line for us every single day. Since safety is our most effective insurance policy, giving them the tools to be more effective and more efficient in the daily execution of their work, where they put their lives on the line every day, is incredibly important.

I look forward to greater debate on this very important piece of legislation, because we all want a modernized set of statutes when it comes to our workforce, today and into the future. Again, I want to applaud the Minister of Labour for this important step forward and, again, give a shout-out to our men and women in uniform who save us every day from fires and the dangers that lurk just around the corner. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have a couple of minutes to make some preliminary comments on the basis of the debate so far. I don’t think there is anyone who disputes the importance of creating safe working conditions for employed people.

Certainly we’ve seen some egregious, illegal activities. The Ministry of Labour is under constant pressure to make sure that safety protocols are maintained in this province. When you look at other jurisdictions, where there are none or there are very few, people are at tremendous risk, so it’s really very important that we maintain those safe working conditions and that they move along with the different types of pressures, machinery, sites and things like that—chemicals, whatever—that increasingly become part of those safe working conditions.

Like my colleague from Wellington–Halton Hills, I would assume that there has been some costing done of the details of implementation. Certainly the business community has to be looking at the balance between their ability to maintain and keep up with the changes and the cost pressures that those might include. So I think it’s really important for the debate in the House to reflect the knowledge of a cost-benefit analysis that would allow for the business community to embrace this initiative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): To the minister for a two-minute response.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member for Wellington–Halton Hills; the member for York–Simcoe, who just spoke; the member for Oshawa, who has been involved in this bill earlier; and my colleague the member for Burlington for their comments—and my parliamentary assistant, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, for the comments he added to mine.

A couple of members across the floor noted that I only took nine minutes in my opening remarks. Those of us who have sat on a council, those of us who have been a mayor or a councillor still to this day often look to this place and think that perhaps people talk a little too much here and don’t get a lot done.

Certainly you could tell the people that have served on a council, because they’ve learned that it doesn’t matter what their political outlook, philosophy or affiliation is; they have learned how to use words, I think, in a much better way than we often do here, and they accomplish a lot more and talk a lot less. There is a little bit of that in there, and certainly that applies, I think, to all members here.

People have asked about the costing. I think if you look to the WSIB and its practices in the past short period of time, the way they’ve conducted their affairs, compared to how they were conducted in the past, you’ve seen a tremendous improvement in the management of the WSIB, and not to the detriment of the coverage that’s provided. The unfunded liability of the WSIB continues to fall. We’re way ahead of schedule. We’re doing, I think, a tremendous job. That, we intend to continue. There’s nothing in these bills that would impede that in any way.

Certainly, for the working men and women, for those people on the front lines who protect us, there’s something in this bill for everybody. It makes life a little easier for those who have been injured at work, it emphasizes the seriousness of committing an offence under these acts, and it also helps organized labour in the sense that they are able to conduct their affairs in a much more efficient manner.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of our caucus and do the lead-off speech, as the official opposition critic for labour, in response to the government’s Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour, which stands in the name of the Minister of Labour, introduced for first reading on May 28, 2015, and now called for second reading this morning. I certainly appreciate this opportunity.

As important as this bill is, and I believe it is a vitally important bill, I think the number one question at Queen’s Park today is who is going to be in the House at 3:37 p.m. this afternoon, when the first pitch is thrown down at the Rogers Centre, and who has baseball tickets. I have to say that I don’t have baseball tickets. I’ve received no invitations, alas. So I will be here participating this afternoon. Certainly, I wish the Blue Jays luck as they enter the playoffs. I think it’s going to be a very exciting month of October for the people of Toronto, all of Ontario, and indeed all of Canada. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that really doesn’t pertain directly to Bill 109, but maybe there’s some connection there, nonetheless.

I think that it’s important to talk about the fiscal context upon which all legislation is presented in this House because, obviously, the strength of the economy is very important to the well-being of the province and the people of the province. Certainly, the budgetary policy of the provincial government is one of the key components of economic leadership, so, again, I feel compelled to point out the fiscal context upon which Bill 109 is introduced.

We know the government projects a deficit this year of $8.5 billion. That is, in fact, down marginally from last year, at $10.9 billion, so there has been some improvement in the deficit year over year. But, again, this is a projected deficit for the fiscal year that we’re in now, 2015-16. The fiscal year, of course, that we’re in now will end at the end of March of next year.

It’s also important to point out that the projected provincial net debt is almost $300 billion in the province of Ontario today. It’s projected in the budget to go up to $298.9 billion. That is up dramatically from last year, year over year: $14.7 billion higher than it was last year. Last year, the net debt was expected to be $284.2 billion. So it’s a substantial—dramatic, in fact—increase in the debt, year over year.

Provincial government spending this year is expected to be $131.9 billion. That’s up, again, year over year, up $2.4 billion. The government would lead us to believe that they’re holding the line on spending, but in fact spending is actually increasing by $2.4 billion. Last year, the spending came in at $129.5 billion.

Another very important number is the net debt per capita. That is, in effect, the amount that each man, woman and child owes because of years and years of government overspending. The net debt per capita is $21,642. That’s up $870 from last year. Last year, the number was $20,772. That gives people a better understanding and illustration of what we owe as individuals, if you break it down. That’s just provincial debt, Mr. Speaker; that doesn’t include the national debt.

Another important number is the debt-to-GDP ratio. Of course, that is a comparison of the provincial debt in relation to the size of our economy and the value of the goods and services that we produce. That is, of course, our gross domestic product. That ratio is 39.8%, up from 39.4% last year. Just to, again, put this number in some sort of context, before the recession in 2007-08, the debt to GDP ratio was 26.2%. Now, it’s almost 40%. This is a very worrisome trend that I think the government needs to acknowledge, and acknowledge that they’re going to take greater steps to reduce that ratio back to a more acceptable level.

What does that mean? It means that interest payments on the debt are rising. This year we’re spending $11.4 billion on interest, up from last year. Last year, we spent $10.7 billion—

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order. The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: We have a very important labour bill before us, Bill 109. I haven’t heard one reference to this very important labour bill. He’s talking about the federal election campaign of Stephen Harper. Let’s talk about labour.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much for that point of order. I’m hoping the member will tie it in quickly to the bill, and I’d ask him to do so.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I made absolutely no reference to the federal election campaign, Mr. Speaker, but apparently the member heard something else.

The fact is, the interest payments on the debt, $11.4 billion—and maybe some of the government members are annoyed to hear this, but these are the numbers from their budget. I’m not exaggerating, As a matter of fact, they’re the government’s own numbers. The interest on the debt is the fastest-growing line item in the budget: 5.7% average annual growth out to 2017-18. So we see a financial picture that is very worrisome, and a budgetary policy that creates severe concern, certainly on the opposition benches and I think across the province.

Certainly, workers and employers and employees, all of whom have an interest in labour law, are all concerned about this, too, Mr. Speaker, once they know the facts. We see a government that continues to engage in spending patterns that are unsustainable and unaffordable. So, yes, that is the fiscal context upon which all of the legislation that’s going to be debated today will be debated, including Bill 109.

We see, with Bill 109, that the government is proposing to amend three specific statutes: the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997; the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997; and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. There are three schedules in this bill, and they are intended to amend three acts. The bill looks like it’s 14 pages, and it is complex and detailed. Again, I think we need more clarification from the government as to what they’re proposing to do.

For our part, as the official opposition, I would say that we support fair labour laws in the province of Ontario. We believe there needs to be a balance which respects the rights of workers and the needs of employers. We need to grow the economy and create new, good-paying jobs, and we need to strengthen Ontario’s competitiveness so that we can win in the global economy.

We see, of course, with the trade negotiations that just concluded in recent days, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that the government has participated in negotiating—the federal government, and the provinces have received some information about the details, I hope. I would hope that they will be consulted. The provincial government hopefully will have more details. Hopefully, as the details come out, we’ll have a better understanding of what has been discussed.

I think, clearly, we have to be part of that trade negotiation, Mr. Speaker. This negotiation, which has taken place over several years, I believe, will have a significant impact on the world economy. Canada just simply couldn’t be left on the sidelines. I hope the deal is in the best interests of Ontario, in the best interests of workers, in the best interests of business and our farm community. I look forward to seeing the details, as well. But certainly we need to see more in terms of what has been decided.

In terms of Bill 109, there’s an important component that affects the fire service in the province of Ontario. I would echo the remarks that were made by the minister in terms of his appreciation for the work that is done by our professional firefighters as well as our small-town—what we have always called the volunteer fire service. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in some cases, small communities are paying either an honorarium or an hourly wage to their part-time firefighters, as we call them. We certainly owe a huge debt of gratitude to our fire service, everyone that’s involved, and their families, too, because we know it can be a very dangerous occupation.

Firefighters demonstrate enormous courage. They are highly trained, skilled individuals and professionals. Their courage is on display every day and they are prepared to risk their lives to keep us safe. Obviously, from our perspective as the official opposition, we support our fire service and all the individuals who are involved with them. We value what they do. We appreciate it very, very much.

It’s my understanding, from what I’ve heard and what I’ve been told, that the changes to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act have been developed in consultation with some of our fire service, in particular, the Ontario Professional Firefighters Association. I would have to say that those recommendations in Bill 109 seem to be reasonable as they affect the fire service, from what I’ve seen so far. But I would also need to point out that the changes to the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act require additional public discussion.

Our PC caucus has many questions, and we will be asking questions over the course of this debate. We would hope the government will respond. That’s really what debate is supposed to be all about around here. If we raise issues of concern, you would anticipate and hope that the government will address those questions during the course of the debate.

But I also believe and anticipate that this bill will be going to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings. I think that would, obviously, be a necessity, allowing the groups and individuals who have ideas, concerns and suggestions to improve the bill, or if they have serious opposition to some of the provisions, that they be given an opportunity to do that.

Of course, in the two-minute responses that we just had to the minister’s speech and his parliamentary assistant’s, my colleague from York–Simcoe and I both asked a similar question, which was, “What is this bill going to cost? What is this going to cost for the employers?” Because, of course, we know the employers pay the premiums for WSIB. Employers have an interest in that, and the employer groups, from time to time, express concerns about increasing premiums because it becomes a payroll cost. I wouldn’t say it’s a tax because the premiums are not a tax, but they are a cost to having employees.

It’s a payroll cost that is not reflective of your profitability. What you have to pay is based to some degree on your safety record as an employer. But also there are, obviously, minimums that have to be respected. The reality is, employers have to be able to meet their payroll costs as the first order of business, I guess. Even if they are unprofitable and not making money, they still have to make those payments. These are very important concerns.

As we know, over the years, the WSIB has had an issue with respect to its unfunded liability, meaning, there are more commitments, financial commitments and promises that have been made than there is a plan for money to come in the door to pay for them. I know, again, the current WSIB chair, Elizabeth Witmer, our former deputy leader and former colleague here in the Legislature, has done an outstanding job of addressing many of these concerns, working with employers and employees to address the concerns with respect to unfunded liability.

Obviously, the injured workers have an interest in the unfunded liability as well, because if there isn’t enough money to pay for the pensions or for their benefits, then where is the money going to come from? They obviously share that concern and should.

I would also say that the WSIB has made significant improvement in its unfunded liability, and it’s going in the right direction. I believe they have a long-term plan to reduce it—to eliminate it. I don’t have the details in front of me—the actual numbers—but from what I’ve read and heard, they are making good progress, and they deserve acknowledgment for that.

That comes back to the basic question that we asked during the questions and comments: What is this going to cost? These changes to WSIB: What are those going to cost in terms of premiums or in terms of upward pressure on the unfunded liability? Again, valid questions—I think they’re valid. I would anticipate and expect that there has been a comprehensive financial analysis done. The government has yet to table it. We would ask them to do so. It has to come out at some point. I would hope that, during the course of debate, subsequent government speakers will address that question. If they don’t, we’re going to keep asking.

Bill 109:

schedule 1, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, amendments. Bill 109 incorporates significant portions of the Labour Relations Act into the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, including unfair labour practices, membership in associations and expedited rights to arbitration. The bill will permit associations to require the inclusion of closed-shop language in a collective agreement, with features such as mandatory association dues, deductions and provisions requiring membership in the association, or giving preference of employment to members of an association.

We understand that these powers are to be balanced by rights for the firefighters as well. For example, expelled or suspended members or those who have been denied membership in an association will be protected on certain grounds, such as in the case of reasonable dissent. This is a key issue for many small-town fire services, Mr. Speaker, because we have been informed that in some cases, this will allow double-hatters to continue their volunteer work without fear of reprisal.

Bill 109 will also allow labour disputes, under this act, to be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as opposed to an Ontario court. Of course, if the disputes don’t have to go to court, that frees up some of the court resources for other cases. Hopefully, it can be dealt with by more specifically trained labour relations hearings officers, who are more expert in labour relations law—and deal with these disputes in a more expeditious way, too, I would hope.

Under Bill 109, firefighters will be able to opt out of union membership or even paying union dues if being a member conflicts with their religious beliefs. I am told the changes found in

schedule 1 in some cases will apply retroactively.

What we have been told is that this particular

schedule incorporates the spirit, I guess, of the Labour Relations Act into the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. So some of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the spirit of it are reflected in the firefighters’ legislation.

In 2002, a fire chief in my riding came into my constituency office to inform me about a concern that he had. It was with respect to something that he called double-hatters. Double-hatters are full-time professional firefighters who work for a full-time department, typically in the city, but who may live in a small town nearby. On their days off, they want to volunteer their skills and services to their small-town fire service in their home community.

In some cases back in March 2002, we were told that the Ontario professional firefighters’ union was telling its members that they had to quit as volunteers or part-time firefighters in their home communities, and if they didn’t, they might be kicked out of their association or union; and if they were kicked out of their union, the collective agreement would place in jeopardy their full-time positions.

I took this issue up, researched it thoroughly and brought a bill into the Legislature, Bill 30, to protect the right of small-town double-hatter firefighters to continue to serve in their home communities as well as in their full-time professional job in the city that they might commute to. This became a very controversial private member’s bill.

In the end, we had extensive debate. I asked the legislative library to look into it. They told me that there were more hours of debate on this Bill 30 than any other private member’s bill in the history of the province of Ontario; they went back as far as 1950 and then they stopped looking. So I think it’s fair to say that this bill received more hours of debate than any other private member’s bill in the history of the province.

Again, this was 13 years ago, but I remember it well. Our party was in government. In the end, I insisted on a third reading vote, and the government of the day allowed that to take place. The bill was defeated at third reading, but I was encouraged by the support of two thirds of our caucus at that time who were present in the House and voted for it—but one third voted against it. On the opposition side, of course, the New Democrats voted against it. The Liberals, in opposition at that time, most of them voted against it, but they were whipped. I know that for a fact: They were whipped to vote against it.

I believe three of their members decided to support it, one of whom is here today, and I appreciate that very much, the support that he gave the bill at that time.

I have always said I would continue to stand up for the rights of double-hatters to continue to serve their home communities as firefighters, and I have always done that. We’ve raised this in the House from time to time when we know there’s an issue, but the fact is, it’s my understanding that this Bill 109 is an attempt to provide a legislated solution to protect two-hatters, in some cases. I would have to say I express appreciation to the government for bringing this forward. If this is indeed the solution that we were seeking in 2002, we’ve waited 13 years to get it and obviously I very much appreciate it.

There were extensive public hearings on Bill 30, as well. Again, this goes back 13 years. I do want to make reference to comments at the hearings by the fire marshal of Ontario. Because, of course, my Bill 30 was supported by the firefighters of Ontario, which are the volunteer firefighters in the province—essentially the small-town and rural firefighters. We heard from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, that there are approximately—I think he said 19,000 part-time or volunteer firefighters in the province of Ontario and I think he said 11,000 professional or full-time firefighters.

The fact is, my bill was supported by the Fire Fighters’ Association of Ontario, which is the volunteer fire service; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, or AMO, which was expressing support for my bill; and the fire chiefs association of Ontario, representing all the fire chiefs across the province, including the big-city ones. Those stakeholders were supportive of the bill.

I think it’s also important to point out, though, that the fire marshal of Ontario at the time, Bernard Moyle, who was the senior fire official in the province working within the Ministry of the Solicitor General at the time, came to committee, expressed support for my bill and suggested that it was needed.

Here is what he said at committee. This was the justice committee on 21 October, 2002. He said:

“In most full-time and composite fire departments, career firefighters are represented by local associations that are affiliated with both the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the International Association of Fire Fighters. The constitutions of both of these organizations prohibit career firefighters serving as volunteer firefighters. As a result, the OPFFA has periodically directed that members stop two-hatting or be charged under their constitution, which could result in being expelled from the association.

“Expelling two-hatters is problematic because many fire service collective agreements in Ontario require their members to maintain membership in the firefighters’ associations as a condition of full-time employment. This common stipulation means that a full-time firefighter found guilty of a breach of the association’s constitution and bylaws could have their membership revoked and consequently be ineligible to continue their full-time employment. Understandably, career firefighters who are serving as volunteer or part-time firefighters would be under considerable pressure to resign if their full-time career was put at risk.

“The conflict between the practice of two-hatting and the association’s constitutional provisions is producing tension and instability in Ontario’s fire protection delivery system. My office was officially notified of a potentially serious situation involving two-hatters by the chief of the Hamilton fire department on February 8, 2002. In addition to the letter from the city of Hamilton, a number of other letters and inquiries on this subject were received indicating that some career firefighters were receiving letters from their association requesting proof of resignation from their part-time employment within 30 days.

“Information received by my office indicated that the scope of the IAFF”—again, that’s the International Association of Fire Fighters—“activity was not limited to Ontario but was also occurring in some areas of the United States. As a result, I established an internal working group to examine the issue of two-hatting and to determine whether there was a public safety concern arising from the OPFFA’s increased activity to enforce its constitutional provisions against its members who were two-hatting.

“Under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, the fire marshal has discretionary power to review and monitor municipal fire protection services to determine if they meet the mandatory requirements of the FPPA and if a serious threat to public safety exists. This was the authority we used to constitute the working group to review the two-hatter issue. Because of the scope and nature of this issue, my office proceeded under the potential serious threat

section of the FPPA to review the impact of the OPFFA initiatives to enforce their constitution.

“The” Ontario fire marshal’s “concern was that these actions had the potential to result in a sudden withdrawal of the services of two-hatters throughout the province. The right-to-work issue is not part of the mandate of the OFM and was not addressed in our analysis of the situation. In fact public safety was, and continues to be, the OFM’s single focus in this matter.

“I would like to now review the steps taken by my office in attempting to reach a non-legislated solution.”

The fire marshal went on, “A brief meeting was held with representatives of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association in mid-February 2002”—again, this meeting took place about a month before I was informed of the issue—“to informally discuss the issue. At that time, the OFM committed to working with affected stakeholder groups to determine if there was any common ground that could be used to arrive at a sustainable solution to the problem.

The OPFFA and the OAFC”—that’s the chiefs’ association—“agreed to work with the OFM”—the fire marshal—“and other stakeholders. Moreover, the OPFFA agreed not to aggressively pursue charging their members until such time as the matter had been reviewed and discussed with the stakeholders. They also committed not to take any action that would jeopardize public safety.

“A draft discussion paper was prepared by the OFM working group and distributed to the stakeholders for review and comment. The paper concluded that there was no immediate threat to public safety at this time, but a sudden or widespread withdrawal of two-hatter services would have varying degrees of repercussions to municipalities, up to and including a potential serious threat.

“Formal individual discussions were then initiated to obtain the positions of the following stakeholders: the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario”—that is the volunteer fire service association—“the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs; and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The first meeting was held with representatives of the OPFFA and the IAFF on May 14, 2002.

“On May 22, 2002,” the fire marshal went on, “MPP Ted Arnott introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 30. We now had the consultation process as well as a proposed legislated solution on the table.

“The consultation process continued, and the first joint stakeholder meeting was held on August 1, 2002, to determine whether a non-legislated solution could be found. Several ideas were discussed and proposals put forth, one by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs which involved grandfathering existing two-hatters, and another by the OPFFA which involved the phasing out of two-hatters in a manner that would not jeopardize public safety. At the request of AMO, the parties were requested to provide more detail on their proposals.

“The proposals were sent to all the stakeholders for review and comment. In response to these proposals, both the FFAO and AMO advised my office that they could not support the proposals and were supporting a legislated solution.

“During the discussions, it was apparent that no mechanism existed to allow any of the parties to bind their membership to any agreement that may have been arrived at by the parties. For example, AMO could not bind municipalities”—it didn’t have the power to bind municipalities—“to an agreement reached with the OPFFA, nor could the OPFFA guarantee that their locals or individual members would adhere to an agreement. Certainly, all were in a position to influence their membership.” But they couldn’t compel them to agree.

“Moreover, the parties appeared to be polarized in their positions related to phasing out two-hatters. For example, the FFAO, AMO and the OAFC do not support the phasing out of career firefighters who serve as volunteer part-time firefighters, which is the position of the OPFFA. There simply was no common ground for agreement on a non-legislated solution.

“For the reasons stated above, it is our opinion that an enforceable and sustainable non-legislated solution to the two-hatter issue is not achievable.

“In a letter distributed to members of the OPFFA on October 1, 2002, by Mr. Fred LeBlanc, president of the association, the moratorium on secondary employment charges was lifted, which could significantly increase the activity by the OPFFA membership and potentially impact on public safety.

“It is my understanding that the OPFFA committed to the moratorium as long as constructive dialogue was taking place. This is no longer the case,” the fire marshal said at the committee, “so the moratorium was lifted. This is not intended as a criticism of the OPFFA, as they have a legal right to enforce their constitution. However, the lifting of the moratorium by the OPFFA will likely exacerbate the existing tension and uncertainty in both the fire service and municipal communities, and it is unclear to what extent and degree this action will impact on existing two-hatters.

“The sudden or phased withdrawal of two-hatters from communities dependent on volunteer fire departments could significantly impact on their ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection and may in some cases pose a potential serious threat to public safety for the following reasons.

“There would be a loss of experience, leadership and expertise in some communities. In fact, for that very reason, even a single two-hatter can make a significant difference in a small rural community. For example, some two-hatters serve as senior officers and captains and have fire prevention and training responsibilities, which are key functions in any fire department.

“There may be a reduced capacity for providing adequate emergency responses during weekdays, when two-hatters are more readily available due to their shift schedules.

“Increased response times may occur, at least until replacements can be recruited and adequately trained, if in fact replacements are available within the community. There may be an increased time in which to assemble an adequate fire attack team and a potential short-term reduction in fire ground effectiveness, resulting in greater fire losses.

“The time required to recruit and train full-time, part-time or volunteer firefighters can be expensive, creating short-term delivery difficulties. In some communities there may not be a pool of potential candidates available to become volunteer firefighters and a community may not be able to afford hiring full-time firefighters, creating a potential public safety issue.

“In a number of communities that have a heavy reliance on two-hatters, the sudden withdrawal of their services could create a potential serious threat to public safety.

“In conclusion,” he said, “there is a provincial and public interest in protecting two-hatters who wish to serve as volunteer firefighters. We do not believe that a non-legislated solution is achievable or enforceable. As a result, without a legislated solution, the existing tensions and uncertainty in the fire service community will continue, and the high potential for two-hatters to resign as a result of OPFFA constitutional enforcement activities could well result in significant public safety concerns arising. It is my understanding that such protection is not uncommon in most jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States.

“In closing, my office recognizes the importance of balancing interests where possible, but supports first and foremost the need to develop a legislated solution that clearly protects the interests of public safety. It is important that career firefighters who wish to serve as part-time or volunteer firefighters in their home communities are permitted to do so without fear of loss of employment.”

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to read those comments from the standing committee on justice by the fire marshal of Ontario of the day, Bernard Moyle, explaining why he supported my Bill 30.

I realize we’re getting very close to the time. Maybe this is a good time to let you pause now and recess the House so that we can resume this debate later on. I still have about half of my time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): You have two minutes.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’ll keep going, then. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The whole point of all of that was to again remind the House of the importance of two-hatters in rural Ontario. I could have reiterated many of the points that I made in my second reading speech on Bill 30 in 2002, or my third reading speech on Bill 30 that I presented to this House, which took place, I believe, in December 2002.

But I thought it was probably most helpful to take the words of the foremost expert in the fire service in the province of Ontario—the senior fire official in the province of Ontario of the day, the fire marshal—and allow his words to be brought into this debate today to indicate why we do need to support our two-hatter firefighters and ensure that they can continue.

Over the course of this debate there will be more questions, but again, if indeed this Bill 109 provides protection for two-hatter firefighters, that’s a good thing for public safety in small-town Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and I would have to commend the government. It has been 13 years since I introduced my bill, and it’s pretty exciting if indeed the day has finally come when we are going to provide the legislative protection that the fire marshal argued was necessary in 2002 and that was encompassed in my Bill 30. If that day is finally here, then it’s a good day for public safety in rural Ontario.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and welcome the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus to Queen’s Park. I want to thank them for their breakfast and the conversation this morning, and again welcome them here and thank them for being here at Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m really happy to introduce Adam Jeronimo, who is here from my constituency office in Pickering–Scarborough East. This is his first time to Queen’s Park and first time to question period. He’s attending some meetings and we’re going to have lunch today. Welcome, Adam. Thanks for being here.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to congratulate this morning page, Sydney Groskleg, who is joined by her parents today, Jennifer and Darwin. They’re here in the gallery this morning. Sydney is the third member of the Groskleg family to act as a page, following her sisters, Giselle and Abbigail.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the member for Willowdale, I want to welcome Vibhas Bapat and Swati Bapat, who are the parents of our page captain, Sameer Bapat. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome three local wardens who were here for breakfast this morning with the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus: Rick Phillips, who is the warden of Hastings county and the reeve of Tyendinaga township; Gord Schermerhorn, who is the mayor of Napanee and the warden of Lennox and Addington county; and Robert Quaiff, who is the mayor and warden of Prince Edward county. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think they’re on their way here. I’d like to introduce members of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team: president Paul Beeston, general manager Alex Anthopoulos, and the entire team is scheduled to be here today. I’d like to introduce them and also congratulate them on winning the American east championship and entering the playoffs, and wishing them the best to win the World Series. I’m told they wear hats like that. I’m told that.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Far be it from me to tell the dean of the House it’s not a point of order.

Further introductions?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Please join me in welcoming page Grace Maili Sengfah’s mother, Ja Kai Shwe, who is in the public gallery today. She is the mother of page Grace Maili Sengfah.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m pleased to introduce Frank Leone, Jan Freedman, Jim Abram and Louise Miller from the Aurora Seniors Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome all the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus here at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: It’s my pleasure to introduce—it’s his last day here—page Krishaj Rajbhandari. His mother is here, Jasmine Rajbhandari, and his sister is here, Isha Rajbhandari, and a family friend, Norma. They’re all sitting up in the public gallery this morning.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Warden Denis Doyle and Kelly Pender from my riding of Kingston and the Islands.

Wearing of Toronto Blue Jays paraphernalia

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga, I believe on a point of order.

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, a point of order, Speaker, of course: I believe we do have unanimous consent by all parties to allow members today to wear their Blue Jays jersey or hat in the House in recognition of the Blue Jays making the post-season for the first time in 22 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I introduce that unanimous consent, I would ask for an amendment that says, “Don’t let Jim Bradley wear a hat.”

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Forget that amendment.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is seeking unanimous consent to wear the Blue Jays paraphernalia. Do we agree? Thank you. Put it on.

I would also point out that we have a few Blue Jays fans up there already.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The government’s 2014 budget made a spending commitment for infrastructure of $130 billion. In that budget, the spending commitment was fully costed with no mention of the Hydro One fire sale. The 2015 budget made the same spending commitment of $130 billion, but included the proceeds from the Hydro One fire sale.

What happened? How does this Premier justify the fire sale of Hydro One, saying it’s for infrastructure when there’s not one iota of a difference between what they were spending in 2014 and what they’re spending now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, go, Blue Jays.

Let me begin by saying to the Leader of the Opposition that we’ve always been clear that we needed to look at our assets, to leverage current assets in order to be able to invest in the assets that we need for now and for the future. If we don’t invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit systems and the water systems and the schools and the hospitals around this province that we know are needed by communities, we’re not going to be able to compete. We’re not going to be as productive as we should be, and communities are not going to be able to thrive and businesses are not going to be able to expand.

Infrastructure is fundamental to our economic growth. It always has been. It has been neglected in the past. We are making the investments necessary in order to be able to go forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: No one believes the spin that the Hydro One fire sale is going for infrastructure. In 2014, the Premier said that she would spend $130 billion in her budget, and they laid out how they were going to pay for it. Now the Liberals claim the $4 billion from the Hydro One fire sale is going to pay for infrastructure.

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen reads, “A reasonable person might wonder why we need to sell most of a significant public asset ... just to keep doing what we have been doing” before.

“The real answer, I suspect, is that” it “will enable the government to quietly shift existing money to help it reduce the deficit or pay” for their spending programs.

Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier admit the fire sale of Hydro One is just and entirely to pay for their own mismanagement?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, the assumption, in fact, explicitly stated in that question is that we are doing exactly what has been done by previous governments. That’s not true. Previous governments didn’t invest in infrastructure, and when we came into office in 2003, what the previous—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not getting things quiet for somebody to throw their jabs in.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When we came into office in 2003, the fact is that there was a lag, there was neglect in the investment in infrastructure that had been a hallmark of the previous government, including filling in the hole along Eglinton Avenue where there would have been a subway. We would have had a subway along Eglinton by now if that government hadn’t filled—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: The $130-billion commitment in 2015 wasn’t new. It was fully costed in 2014. The only difference between the 2014 infrastructure commitment and the one in 2015 is the surprise fire sale of Hydro One. The Liberal budget is simply a shell game. Everyone in Ontario knows it’s a shell game.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That is just not true.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of the Treasury Board, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is: What is the money really going for? Is it going for eHealth? Is it going to make up for Ornge? Is it going for the gas plants? Are you doing this fire sale to pay for your own scandals and incompetence?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Every time the Leader of the Opposition says the words “fire sale,” I think he’s talking about the 407, because that’s what that was.

We were always clear that in order to make the investments that we need to make, we had to look at current assets, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why we asked Ed Clark to look at our current assets and to give us advice on how to leverage them to invest in new infrastructure. That was always part of our plan. We were very clear about it and that is what we’re doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing and the member from Renfrew, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the assets and the need to leverage assets from the time we put our plan in place. It was in our budget; it was in our election platform. We’re moving forward so we can make the investments that are needed in this province.

Agriculture industry

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This week the minister stood in the House and spoke of the importance of agriculture in the province, and I commend the minister for recognizing that during Ontario Agriculture Week. But in his capacity, the minister should be fighting for rural Ontario at the cabinet table, making rural voices heard. Instead, the minister has ignored the plea from 166 municipalities, the vast majority in rural Ontario, that have said unequivocally that the fire sale of Hydro One is a bad deal for rural Ontario.

The minister knows this fire sale is a bad deal for rural Ontario. Mr. Speaker, when will the minister stand up for the people of rural Ontario and tell his Premier why this is a bad deal for rural Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Well, thanks—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m still standing.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, I’m still standing.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

The question from the Leader of the Opposition is like a fastball down the middle of the plate, and let me tell you why. I was a city councillor in Peterborough in 1998-99, when the government—

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I went through what was called then the Who Does What exercise. Anybody who served on municipal council during that period of time knows exactly what it was. It was a “who got done in” exercise. That party over there downloaded 43% of all the roads and bridges in eastern Ontario. Shame on them for not funding that and dumping it down.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Agriculture: First, the minister kept quiet on the neonic pesticides issue and now he sits silent on the Hydro One fire sale while rural municipalities are pleading for him to stand up for rural Ontario.

It’s interesting that among the 166 municipalities that say this is a bad deal for Ontario are Peterborough and Peterborough county. In the past, the minister was on the record saying he would keep Hydro One in public hands. The minister knows that his own constituents and over 70% of residents in Ontario are against this bad deal.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question to the minister is, will he finally stand up for his constituents in Peterborough, listen to his city council and say this is a bad deal for rural Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Jeff Leal: The Leader of the Opposition just pitched another fastball down the middle of the plate. I’d like to report what the Leader of the Opposition said on May 5, 2015: “I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. I generally think market conditions would be helpful for a lot of government agencies.”

And then on May 15: “I obviously like market conditions. I know how the private sector runs like a business.”

Mr. Speaker, he should ask me another question, the third ball down the middle of the plate.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the minister: We know the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m actually trying to get the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, I’m trying to get the attention of them, and you’re not helping.

Mr. Tim Hudak: There’s three.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, no, don’t engage.

Please ask your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Agriculture: We know the minister won’t stand up for rural Ontario on the neonic ban. We know the minister will not stand up for his own constituents in Peterborough, by virtue of the motion passed by Peterborough city council. But maybe he can support agriculture in Ontario—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, second time.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I’m asking the Minister of Agriculture if he will support the incredible work by the member for Huron–Bruce, who is putting forward a motion to recognize the importance of agriculture and food literacy, and introduce it into the high schools. Will the minister support this great motion today?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition just walked in the winning run this afternoon against the Texas Rangers with that question. The answer is simple: Yes.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m proud to be wearing my blue and white today to support the Blue Jays.

My question is to the Premier. The people of Ontario don’t want this Premier to sell off our public hydro system. They have been writing; they have been signing petitions; they have been demonstrating, Speaker, but this Premier has ignored them and has ignored their legitimate concerns.

She promised to consult, but so far she’s only consulting with wealthy investors. She promised to listen, but so far she’s only listening to her embedded banker, Speaker. This Premier doesn’t care what the people of Ontario think. Why is she ignoring Ontarians and plowing ahead with the sell-off of Hydro One against the public’s wishes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party knows full well, what we have said is that we are going to broaden the ownership in Hydro One. I’m sure when she’s talking to folks in communities, she makes it clear that that is a portion of the electricity system in Ontario, that it’s part of the distribution system and the transmission system, and that it is a system that is already mixed in terms of private and public deliverers. I’m sure she makes that clear, Mr. Speaker.

I’m sure she also makes it clear that we said we were going to leverage existing assets in order to invest in the infrastructure assets that we know we need into the future, because that’s what this is about. It’s about the roads and the bridges, the water systems around the province, the transit that we know we need in order to be able to compete globally.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I can tell you for sure, Speaker, is that the people of Ontario do darn well know what Hydro One is, and they don’t want it sold off.

The Premier thinks she knows better than Ontarians, though. Most Ontarians oppose the sell-off of Hydro One. Meanwhile, a significant majority of Ontarians also favour modest increases to the taxes of our largest corporations, Speaker. The government’s own report showed that by raising corporate tax rates by 1%, they could raise $700 million a year. That’s almost double the annual—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —expenditure that they expect to make through their sell-off of Hydro One, Speaker.

Why is this Premier plowing ahead with this unnecessary sell-off against the will of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, as the leader of the third party knows, every municipal leader in this province, Mr. Speaker, is looking to the provincial government—and also to the federal government, quite frankly—for investments in infrastructure. They know that they need to be able to make those investments. They can’t do it on their own. They know they need a partner in the provincial government to invest in provincial infrastructure that links our communities and to work with municipalities to make those investments.

The leader of the third party talks about tax increases. She knows that in our budget, we did increase taxes. She also knows that when she talks about a corporate tax hike, she’s not talking about it in the context of a competitive business environment because that doesn’t seem to be a concern of hers. She also knows that she has spent that corporate tax hike 50 times. She spent it on education; she spent it on social services; she spent it on infrastructure—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier knows that over 170 municipal leaders have said no to the sell-off of Hydro One. This Premier knows that our combined corporate tax rate here in the province of Ontario is lower than that of Alabama, and she should be ashamed of that, not proud of it.

The Premier is presenting the people of Ontario with a false choice, because the fact is that she had a choice. She could have chosen to ask the most profitable corporations to pay just a little bit more. This would allow us to build the transit and the infrastructure that this province so desperately needs. But instead, she is cynically insisting on selling off Hydro One.

When will the Premier do the right thing and put a stop to this wrong-headed privatization, just stop this direction, and make a better choice for the people of Ontario and the generations to come?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The NDP is presenting the people of Ontario with a mythical solution. The fact is, this is the kind of magical thinking that would not result in the building of transit, because every time there is a challenge put forward in terms of revenue that’s needed, in terms of investment that’s needed, whether it’s in transit, whether it’s in roads and bridges, whether it’s in health care or whether it’s in education, the leader of the third party trots out the same number and the same solution.

The reality is that under her lack of a—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: With her lack of a plan, Mr. Speaker, there would be no new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, there would be no Highway 401 improvements in London and Highway 417 in Ottawa, and there would be no Maley Drive extension in Sudbury because you cannot do any of those things without the funding to make—

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

International trade agreement

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Every time this Premier needs money, she picks the pockets of everyday Ontarians and makes this society less fair in Ontario, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has a lot of people very worried. This Premier has been happy to hurl attacks at Stephen Harper when it suits her federal leader’s purposes, but on his far-reaching secret trade deal, she’s suddenly excited by Harper’s plans, despite the fact that the TPP could not only roll back environmental progress made under previous agreements, it could also restrict Internet freedom.

OpenMedia has said that the TPP “will criminalize our online activities, censor the web, and cost everyday users money.”

The people of Ontario want to know: At what point will this Premier actually draw a line and say enough to the dangerous provisions in Harper’s TPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that there is a period of ratification now as the details of the plan are made clear. What I have said is that we have some concerns; we absolutely do have some concerns. We have some concerns about agriculture and what the implications of the agreement would mean. We have concerns about the auto parts sector. Obviously, the auto industry is extremely important to the people of Ontario, and we have some concerns about what the implications would be.

But there are also opportunities. If you look across the country, there are opportunities for industry to find new markets and to be able to expand.

We are taking a cautious approach, but we are not irresponsibly washing our hands of opportunities that may exist for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Economists warn that the TPP could drive away one quarter of Canada’s auto manufacturing. Guess what, Speaker? That’s mostly in Ontario. The fact that Stephen Harper is throwing a billion dollars at the auto sector shows very clearly that even he knows it will be bad for manufacturing. And Jim Balsillie, the founder of BlackBerry, is sounding alarm bells about the impact of the TPP on the tech sector.

The people of Ontario, of this province, deserve to know why their Premier is jumping on the bandwagon with her federal leader to back this bad trade deal. Why is the Premier of this province—of this province—willing to accept a deal that kills 20,000 jobs in Ontario’s auto sector and threatens Ontario’s burgeoning tech sector?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m not jumping on a bandwagon. I’m not completely supportive. I have said that we are concerned about certain areas in the deal. We need to see the language. We need to understand exactly what the details are. We need to understand the implications for industry in Ontario.

But we also need to know where there are opportunities. This is an agreement that was forged for the whole country, and I understand that we are here in Ontario. It is my job to stand up for the people and the industries in this province, and I will do that. But we also have to understand that we’re part of a federation, and we need to understand what the implications and the opportunities are for all provinces and territories across the country.

So I’m not jumping on a bandwagon. I’m saying: Let’s look at it, let’s figure out where the cautions are and let’s figure out where the opportunities are.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier cannot have it both ways. She can’t say one thing to the Empire Club and say something totally opposite in this Legislature.

The chorus of voices against the TPP is growing. Prominent US legislators and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have now stated their opposition to the TPP, because it will unfairly benefit big US drug companies at the expense of patients, Speaker, and because it will push North American wages down even further.

Ontario families are already struggling with stagnant wages and cannot afford to be squeezed further. At what point will the Premier of this province stop going along with her federal leader and Stephen Harper in their race to the bottom and instead stand up for Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I believe that saying that there are cautions that we have to be very clear about in this trade deal, understanding that there may be sectors like the auto sector, like the supply managed sector where we have to be very, very careful that there are supports in place—I think that is standing up for the people of Ontario. I also think it’s standing up for the people of Ontario when, if there is an opportunity for us to strengthen our export capacity, to find markets that are going to help our businesses to grow—I think that’s standing up for the people of Ontario as well.

The fact that the leader of the third party can’t deal with that complexity is not the problem of the people of Ontario. It is complex. It is a complex global economy, and as soon as she discovers that, the better off we all are.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m expecting everyone to do that. When I stand, you stop.

New question.

Domestic violence

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. Last week, after the senseless violence that struck the Ottawa Valley, I asked the Attorney General just how many convicted offenders are released despite their refusal to sign probation orders. The Attorney General said she didn’t know.

In January 2014, Anastasia Kuzyk went to the OPP because Mr. Borutski violated his probation order, broke into her home and violently beat her. Ms. Kuzyk said that she thought he was going to kill her. His violent past should have raised every conceivable red flag. Just nine months after Mr. Borutski was released on probation, Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton are dead, allegedly at his hands.

Mr. Speaker, why has the Premier failed on her commitment to combating domestic violence and take immediate action to ensure violent offenders are more closely monitored?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is going to want to comment in the supplementary. What I want to just say is that this was a horrible, horrible tragedy. When it happened, it was shocking to everyone involved. My heart absolutely goes out to all of the families and, quite frankly, to all of the communities. It was just a terrible tragedy.

It highlights why it’s so important that we all work together, whether it’s on the select committee or the changes that we are going to be bringing forward to legislation to make sure that there are supports for victims, that there are more protections put in place for people who are dealing with sexual assault and violence and helping them to come forward.

As I say, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will respond in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: It absolutely was a tragedy, and we could have tried to prevent it. This government has failed to protect these three innocent women from a dangerous repeat offender who refused to comply with any court-ordered restrictions. This government is now putting more women at risk with its decision to cut the length of the Partner Assault Response Program from 16 weeks to 12 weeks because there are more than 3,000 offenders who are on the wait-list.

Three years ago the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee compiled a list of risk factors for enhanced assessment and safety, factors that the government should have acted on to prevent the murders of Anastasia, Nathalie and Carol. Their families, at the very least, deserve an apology and an explanation. Will the Premier explain why she’s failing to act on the province’s own committee’s report to prevent the victims of domestic violence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to echo the Premier and all members of this House. The kind of incident that took place a few weeks ago in Wilno is shocking and is unacceptable. We know that domestic violence is despicable and absolutely unacceptable anywhere in Ontario. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their home and in their community.

All police services in Ontario are required to have policies and procedures in place for managing domestic violence investigations. To support police services across the province, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has developed a domestic violence occurrences guideline, and police services in Ontario have designated a domestic violence coordinator to provide a consistent approach for responding to domestic violence incidents. Not to mention, we are putting emphasis on training through the Ontario Police College to make sure that we’ve got the appropriate training for our police officers to avoid domestic violence.

International trade agreement

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is for the Premier. Some 20,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs in the auto sector and manufacturing sectors are estimated to be at risk from the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that the leader of the Liberal Party plans on waiting and seeing about.

But let me localize this for you: In my community of Windsor and Essex county, that’s as many as 3,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs, a community that is already reeling from the highest unemployment rate in Canada, one that has seen the exodus of good-paying manufacturing jobs to the lowest-wage jurisdictions on the planet over the last 10 years. Is the Premier prepared to tell the people of my community of Windsor and Essex county that she will indeed wait and see what happens with the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was no waiting and seeing. We had the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs go to Atlanta, where the deal was being finalized, to express concerns, to have a meeting with the federal minister, because, as the member knows, provinces and territories were not included by the federal government in the discussions; they weren’t consulted with. We didn’t have any idea of where they were going. We didn’t have information about what the issues were going to be at the table. So we had to insert ourselves into the process, which is why the minister went to Atlanta.

We are not being passive in this in any way, nor are we being passive in terms of supporting our industries. We are very, very actively engaged with businesses across the province to work with them so that they can thrive. Part of that, Mr. Speaker, to go back to the question by his leader, is that we’re investing in infrastructure that’s needed by communities all across—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Premier has repeatedly said that she doesn’t know what to expect from the TPP trade agreement. But she can’t expect the people of Windsor and Essex county, with a 9.5% unemployment rate, to just “wait and see.”

Stephen Harper said, in September, that the auto industry wouldn’t like what was in the TPP trade agreement. That’s why he’s bracing for this impact with money announcements.

At what point will the Premier admit that she has absolutely no idea how to help the people of Windsor and Essex county withstand another hit from the expected TPP trade agreement?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said in every answer that I’ve given on this agreement, we have a concern about the auto sector, there’s no doubt about that; we have been very clear. But the deal has been negotiated by the federal government. The deal has been negotiated without consultation with the Premiers of the provinces and the territories.

It is my responsibility to make sure that we put forward the cautions and that we make sure that the federal government understands that we are at risk in terms of a number of our sectors. Beyond that, it is very important, where there are opportunities for our industries to grow, that we take advantage of those opportunities.

We have to work with the federal government, which has negotiated this deal, to make sure that both those things happen: the protections and the opportunities.

Youth services

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last Wednesday I picked up the Toronto Star and read about a number of changes that will benefit children and youth in care. I understand that these changes are making it easier to connect these vulnerable young people with a more permanent living situation and, hopefully, a place to call home. In an editorial this weekend, the Star applauded these changes in saying, “It’s not just the right thing for the province to give these kids a helping hand. It’s a fiscally prudent move that will make a big difference in their lives as they become adults.”

In my community of Kingston and the Islands, the wonderful dedicated staff and volunteers at Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington work so hard to provide safe and nurturing environments for more than 350 young people under their care. I know that they would also be interested in learning more about these changes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House on the important changes she announced last week?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for taking such an active interest in what’s going on in terms of adoption in Ontario. It’s an excellent question.

We made these changes because we recognize that there’s a need to do more to support permanency in our child welfare system. The research is very, very clear: Children experience better outcomes when they have a stable and permanent living situation. That’s why we’re making these changes to strengthen the adoption system so more children and youth can find forever families.

Among the specific steps we’re taking are measures to make it easier for traditionally harder-to-place children to be adopted. We’re supporting families to adopt older children and we’re expanding eligibility for our adoption subsidies so that more children can be connected with their forever families. This is great news for children in care in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to thank the minister for the update and for this exciting news.

I’m glad that more children in care will be connected with a permanent and stable living situation and benefit from the stability and care of a family. I greatly admire the foster parents who strive to make a positive difference in the lives of so many deserving children and youth. I know that sometimes it can be a hard adjustment, as some children and youth are coping with emotional and/or behavioural challenges. That is one reason why proper stability, support and, of course, friendship and affection are so important. I am proud that our government is supporting families in this way.

I’m also glad to read on Twitter that these are changes that the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth supports.

Can the minister please explain how the changes she announced will help children focus on their education?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: There are a number of changes in the announcement from last week that we’re all very proud of, but I want to talk about children in care who are not progressing on the same time line for finishing high school as children who live with families, Speaker. I think we all agree it’s our responsibility to ensure these young people are given every opportunity to succeed, and quite often that happens and starts with a high school diploma. So last week we announced funding that allows crown wards to stay with their foster families past the age of 18 while they finish school.

This means they’ll be able to maintain the stability necessary to finish high school without disruption to their home environment.

We heard from youth and we heard from the child and youth advocate that this was the right thing to do, and we absolutely agree. It’s the right thing for our children and youth, and we’re very, very proud to be doing this.

Doctors’ fees

Mrs. Gila Martow: Of course, go, Jays, go. We’re all very excited for this afternoon.

My question is directed to the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, some of us may recall, way back in the year 2000, the negotiation of doctor compensation when the Ontario government agreed to cover medical liability protection costs in exchange for direct remuneration. This was considered a barter system, paying the soaring malpractice insurance costs in exchange for less taxpayer money to doctors.

With this government’s repeated cuts to doctors’ service fees, coupled with the Liberal government’s proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, is this government prepared to cover the high pension costs for medical staff in doctors’ offices, as you did for medical liability protection costs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. It has many parts to it. I’m proud that as part of our past agreements with the OMA we continue to reimburse them for a portion of their liability insurance. I think that’s something—in fact, it goes all the way back to the mid-1980s and something that every government since then has supported.

I’m not sure exactly where the member opposite is trying to go. Our physicians in this province—and I say this with pride, being one of them—are the best-paid in Canada, as they should be. We have some of the brightest minds, the best physicians and experts providing the highest quality of health care to this province, and that’s as it should be.

We’re obviously in a difficult financial time. We’ve asked our doctors to take a modest reduction in the fees that we provide for the services they provide to Ontarians. But they are the best-paid in this country, probably in North America, possibly beyond. That will remain as such.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the Minister of Health: I would just say that I think that a lot of doctors would disagree with some of your comments.

The minister claims that there will be no new money available to pay our doctors. This Liberal government expects the total amount paid to all our doctors collectively to remain the same year after year, with no extra money to account for our increasing population, our aging population, up-to-date medical treatments or the rising costs of running a clinic.

We certainly do not hear, for example, the Minister of Education speak in these terms. Imagine a neighbourhood school with a specific budget for teacher salaries. Now imagine the same school accepting 60 more students and requiring two new teachers. No one would consider it reasonable to require all the teachers at the school to give up a portion of their salaries to fund the two new teachers. Why, then, does the Minister of Health expect doctors to give up a portion of their fees?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say as well that the average compensation for our doctors has gone up by 60% since we took office. In fact, our budget, the envelope available for physicians, isn’t remaining the same. It’s going up by 1.25% this year; it’s going up by 1.25% next year. It is increasing.

But I have to say to the member opposite that I would have hoped she’d also reference our other health care professionals. Our PSWs: We’ve increased their wages. Our nurse practitioners: We have substantial issues in recruitment and retention of our nurse practitioners and other health care professionals. We have to provide more funds, as we’ve committed to do, to home care; to mental health services, as well.

So we’re asking our doctors, in the face of a 60% increase, far in excess of any health care professional, to actually take a pause, a modest reduction, so we can attend to those other priorities.

Child care

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Last November, the Liberal caucus, including the Minister of Education, voted to support the NDP’s motion calling for the province to work with the federal government to provide low-cost child care spaces. However, after it was clear that the NDP was the only willing federal partner ready to support $15-a-day child care, the Premier decided to put partisan Liberal interests—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The Premier decided to put partisan Liberal interests ahead of the needs of Ontario families.

I wrote to the Premier in August asking whether she intended to honour or break the commitment her government made last year. She has not answered, so I ask again: Will the Premier honour or break her government’s commitment to ensure that new child care spaces in Ontario will cost no more than $15 a day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the steady stream of questions from the Mulcair campaign. It’s very encouraging. I would say to the member that it is not at all clear what a Mulcair plan for child care would actually cost the province of Ontario.

Of course, we have made significant investments in child care and will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. Child care funding has increased in Ontario from $532.4 million to over $1 billion. That’s a 90% increase.

We are committed to child care. We understand how important it is, and we will continue to remain committed to child care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It sounds to me like the Premier is not willing to honour her commitment.

My question is to the Minister of Education. In order to sustain child care spaces, you need good neighbourhood schools. Less than a week ago, the government reannounced a promise to provide child care that is close to home, meaning it would be in schools. But since 2011, the minister has forced the closure of at least 88 schools across the province. Five schools in Windsor-Essex are currently at risk of immediate closure.

How can the minister promise child care spaces in schools when she is actively forcing the closure of good community schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I was very pleased last week to announce the beginning of a program for investment in about 4,000 new child care spaces. We did the first 13 of those child cares. What the member opposite is missing is that in some cases what we are doing is actually creating the opportunity to take child care that was in the community and move it to a school, or take child care that was previously located in one school and build it in a new school. That’s something that we intend to continue doing.

Some of those spaces are for four- and five-year-olds’ before- and after-care. The particular group of spaces we announced last week are actually for preschoolers. In fact, we announced almost 800 new spaces just last week alone.

Pay equity

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Women and men should be on equal footing in today’s society. Earlier this week, our Premier spoke about a group of inspiring Canadians, the Famous Five, who tirelessly advocated for women’s rights.

Our government has demonstrated its commitment to women’s equality by helping women get better access to the workforce through major investments in education, training programs, full-day kindergarten, child care, and also through the work of the Pay Equity Commission, the Ontario Women’s Directorate and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. These independent provincial agencies help to increase the economic security of women and eliminate systemic barriers.

However, Mr. Speaker, each day in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, I hear the same issue: There’s a wage gap between genders that unfairly disadvantages women in our province.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What is being done to ensure that Ontario moves forward towards eliminating the wage gap?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member for this very important question on a very important issue.

Speaker, the sad fact is, women on average in Ontario do not earn as much as men, and that needs to change. As the member knows, Minister MacCharles and I previously announced our Gender Wage Gap Strategy Steering Committee. The panel is made up of two external advisers: Linda Davis, the past president of the Business and Professional Women’s Clubs of Ontario; and Dr. Parbudyal Singh, who is a leading expert in human resource management and in labour relations. And we’ve got the Pay Equity Commissioner for Ontario, Emanuela Heynick, and Nancy Austin from my own ministry.

The member’s question could not have come at a better time. Today we’re releasing our consultation paper, announcing the kickoff on October 26 right across Ontario. Speaker, this is a very important issue whose time has come. We’re committed to developing a strategy that’s going to close the wage gap between men and women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I’m happy the consultation will begin shortly, and I’m looking forward to the recommendations that will be put forward during this process.

I also know this is a complex issue caused by many different factors. I know that all women across economic spectrums are affected by the wage gap, but the gap is more pronounced for women who are minorities, aboriginals, newcomers or living with disabilities.

Last Saturday, I hosted a health and government fair in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. I heard a number of issues from new Canadians about the wage gap issue. The existence of a gender wage gap is indicative of barriers facing women that prevent them from making a full contribution to the provincial economy.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please inform the House of the goals of this steering committee and the steps it would take to achieve these goals?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member again for that excellent question.

Our goal, clearly, is to increase fairness for women in Ontario by closing the gender wage gap. To help us do that, the consultations are going to examine ways that government, business, labour, other organizations and even individuals can work together to identify opportunities, remove the barriers and close that gender wage gap. It’s going to examine the role of women at work, in their families and in their communities, and how this impacts on the gap.

Following the consultations, the committee will be responsible for providing me, along with the minister responsible for women’s issues, with recommendations that can assist us in achieving the goal we all have of closing the gender wage gap in Ontario.

I look forward to seeing the recommendations that come back from this committee and taking the next step necessary to make Ontario a fairer province. As I said earlier, this is an issue whose time has come. We aim to deal with it.

Victims of crime

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Attorney General, through the Speaker. Muskoka Victim Services usage is growing exponentially. Over the past five years alone, the yearly caseload jumped from 185 to 822 individuals. That’s a 444% increase.

This local organization provides critical immediate support for individuals and families faced with challenges following crime or tragic events. They do tremendous work.

Because of the changes the Liberal government made to the funding model, Muskoka Victim Services is being forced to do more with less. A funding cut of 10% has left the organization scrambling to find ways to effectively serve their clients. Speaker, will the minister explain why the government cut funding to Muskoka Victim Services?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It’s really a good question, because in the past there was no consistency with these programs. A few years ago, we did review the program. We did analyze it, and we are now attributing the money to the request for service.

But we know that in rural communities and in the north, the population is not there, but they need the service. So we have a special addition in the envelope for rural and northern communities. It’s being reviewed every year. If there is an increase, then the envelope is readjusted.

I will say to the member: Please speak to me, and I will give more details with the information in hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again through the Speaker to the Attorney General: As the trend shows, demand is increasing for local services provided for victims. With the hard work of the organization and over 50 volunteers, they are doing their best to meet the increasing demand. Muskoka Victim Services has had to resort to producing a fundraising video to help make up their budget shortfall.

Speaker, shouldn’t increasing access to victim services be a priority for the Liberal government, regardless of where in Ontario a person chooses to live?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Of course, victim services is a very, very important program and the support for those who need the service. That is why, in 2015, we created Victim Crisis Assistance Ontario. As I said in my previous answer, we are not reducing the overall envelope. Instead, we are redistributing the funding to meet service demand. Under the new funding model, 28 of the 47 agencies that deliver these programs received an increase. Again, these services are revised regularly, and if there is an increase in demand, the envelope will be increased.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last year, my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain raised the issue of a young man, Cameron Laflamme, who has autism and requires intensive one-on-one care and the supports provided through a day program. The issue then was that he was about to age out of school and his mother, needing to work full-time, couldn’t afford to put him into a day program. Happily, funding was provided and Cameron received the care he needed and his mum was able to continue to work. But now the family has learned that the funds available are going to run out this November and will not cover the full annual cost of her son’s day program after all.

What exactly does the Premier expect this family to do if the funds aren’t available?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the important question. As I do with the critic for children and youth services from your party, I’m always happy to discuss cases with her to the extent I can. I can’t get into specifics of a case here, of course, but I think we work very well in terms of identifying issues in her riding and other ridings, and our regional office often reaches out to the families who may need additional support.

I know very well that families caring for young people with autism face very unique challenges, and we are very determined, as a government, to make further progress for these children and their families. That’s why our government invests nearly $190 million annually in autism services. That’s an increase of more than 300% since 2003. But we know there’s more to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Andrea Horwath: There’s no doubt that this family was grateful that the work of the member from Hamilton Mountain with this minister helped resolve this case several months ago, but the problem is that this young man, Cameron Laflamme, has not been cured of autism. He still has autism and still needs the program. They’re in crisis right now. They can’t wait for any other solution. This young man has aged out of school. He’s been placed in a day program that works, where he actually gets the care he needs.

The solution is clear—in fact, the minister helped find it. But not only are the Liberals pulling the rug out from under Cameron now, several months later, but they’re failing thousands of families just like his. Cameron’s mom can’t quit her job in order to provide full-time support for him while waiting years for funding to come through.

When are this government and this Premier going to commit to helping Cameron’s family, and others like them, in a permanent way that helps them over time, not just for a small window?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Just as my colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services has said, in individual cases, of course, we would welcome further information. I’m not aware of this particular situation, but if the individual is now an adult, the individual and the family need to consult with their local developmental service organization.

I would certainly urge the member to consult with my ministry. We are dedicated to ensuring that people have appropriate services. We acknowledge the great efforts that families and caregivers do play—the role they play in their commitment to the individual they are caring for. This is precisely why, in our budget, we did increase the budget for developmental services in this province.

Health care funding

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, infertility is a very serious medical issue that affects about one in six families here in Ontario. All different types of families want to know the joy of bringing a child into the world, but for some, they’re not able to do so easily. Going through infertility treatments can be extremely trying on people physically, emotionally and financially. I can tell you that I have a family member who knows this all too well.

There have been a number of constituents