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

October 28, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-28 (PDF)

L113 - Wed 28 Oct 2015 / Mer 28 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 October 2015 Mercredi 28 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Aboriginal economic development

Addiction services

Privatization of public assets

Wetlands conservation

Correctional facilities

Rail safety

Sexual violence and harassment

Health care funding

Sexual violence and harassment

Correction of record

Visitors

Private members’ public business

Decorum in chamber

Deferred Votes

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Healthy eating

School closures

La francophonie

Hispanic Heritage Month

Shine the Light on Woman Abuse campaign

Half Your Plate initiative

Oxi Day

Civil engineers

Furniture bank

Introduction of Bills

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Motions

Private members’ public business

Committee sittings

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Sexual violence and harassment / La violence et le harcèlement sexuels

Petitions

Services for the developmentally disabled

Dental care

Protection de l’environnement

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Wind turbines

Mental health and addiction services

Protection de l’environnement

Renewable energy

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Wind turbines

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 22, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à renforcer et à améliorer la gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant diverses lois.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to rise this morning and add to the ongoing debate of Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015. Bill 85 is a bill that impacts a tremendous amount of legislation. In total, Mr. Speaker, this bill affects 15 pieces of legislation involving eight different ministries.

Interjection: Wow.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: How do you spell “wow”? That’s incredible. It’s one of these big, huge omnibus bills. This is certainly one of those infamous omnibus bills that people often worry about, a bill so wide in scope that unwelcome changes can be snuck through with less scrutiny. But in the case of Bill 85, I just don’t think there is anything malicious or troublesome to be found. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it’s more of a housekeeping bill than anything else.

This bill was previously introduced in the last Parliament as Bill 151, and was known at that time as the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2013. Of course, that bill died on the order paper when my colleagues to my left decided they weren’t able to support the government’s budget motion, which prompted the Premier to ask the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the House, triggering the 2014 provincial election.

The third party was very upset with the government at that time, and that was before they ever mentioned their plans to sell off Hydro One. The Liberals waited for a few more months to go on record with that one, as it was never specifically mentioned once during the campaign. Given the outrage that that proposed fire sale has sparked province-wide, they feel that their decision not to mention the plan at all during the election was perhaps the right one. The government has their version of events and Ontarians have another. Time will tell who was right.

But back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Absolutely.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You had that look that I should get back on track. We read each other very well.

The bill certainly has a grand title: the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. It sounds very impressive, but it is unfortunately rather modest in scope. Does the act improve government by getting rid of a disastrous two-tier bargaining system that has created chaos for children and parents as teacher negotiations drag on? No, it doesn’t. That’s a real shame, as this two-tier disaster has been so ineffective that it has had a direct impact on children’s experience in the classroom and has resulted in Premier Wynne’s Liberals using taxpayer dollars to pay for bargaining costs.

Now, if we believe the government, the Liberals’ brand new bargaining system was such a failure that they had to spend millions compensating unions for extra costs. That’s the best-case scenario: gross incompetence from the government. I need to go back and just ensure that, you know, the bill is called the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. Hmm. At worst, it’s a callous and unforgivable misappropriation of government funds to funnel money to protect their own political interests.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The day is early, and we’ve already hit some nerves, it would appear; it would appear. I’m just saying.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My nerves aren’t hit.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: No, not yours, Mr. Speaker. Of course, never yours. I speak to you, Mr. Speaker, but others listen when I’m speaking to you, and I think it’s that nerve that gets hit.

At worst, it’s a callous and unforgivable misappropriation of government funds to funnel money to protect their own political interests. Hmm. Given that the government has yet to provide, or even ask for, a single receipt for millions of dollars in expenses, Ontarians are left with questions—more questions than answers.

Taxpayers deserve to know what education programs this government had to divert money from in order to make those payments. They need to know why this government feels that vulnerable students no longer need help to graduate. They want to know how the Minister of Education could possibly suggest that the programs did their job and are no longer necessary. Does the Minister of Education expect Ontarians to believe that no student will ever struggle to graduate again? Why are they not deserving of help?

The people of Ontario deserve transparency and honesty from their government. They don’t deserve a government that must be caught red-handed before it acknowledges what it has done.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that the government will actually listen to the Ontario Medical Association. Just last week, Mr. Speaker, we had a number of doctors right here in the Ontario Legislature who took the time out of their incredibly busy schedules to come down to Queen’s Park so that they could participate in our democracy. They wanted to have their voices heard because they say—and this is in their opinion, not mine—that the government is not giving them the respect they deserve and, more importantly, that this government’s cuts are harming patient care.

They feel betrayed by a government that is hacking away at health care after promising it wouldn’t. They are outraged that the government is suggesting that doctors and nurses are simply imagining health care cuts; that they don’t know what they’re talking about. For not knowing what they’re talking about, they were pretty upset when the Minister of Health didn’t bother to participate in the debate on the future of health care funding in Ontario. He went down the road to catch the Blue Jays game—the only time when Toronto is really blue. That’s where he was.

In the minister’s defence, he met with the OMA president, Michael Toth, the previous week. But that was little comfort to the hundreds of doctors in attendance that day.

As I finish my remarks, I just want to reiterate my support for Bill 85. This is mostly a bit of tidying legislation meant to clean up messes caused by flawed past legislation, updating older legislation and bringing Ontario’s laws in line with federal changes. The bill can also serve as an important lesson for the future for all of us here in the Legislature: If a government can take the helpful advice of opposition parties to strengthen bills before they become law, there will be less need to strengthen and improve government after the fact.

Over time, our respective parties will trade places in this Legislature. It is in our collective best interests, Mr. Speaker, to do the job right the first time, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

I’m very thankful to be able to contribute to the Legislature as a Deputy Speaker. It has shown me that despite our partisan differences, and there are a few on occasion—just saying—we’re here for the right reasons: We all want to strengthen our home communities and this province. We all have valid insights to provide and unique perspectives to add to issues. Listening to everyone can sometimes be a difficult task when things get heated. Mr. Speaker, sitting in that chair—and I and others have sat in that chair—we know how heated this Legislature can get on occasion. This Legislature is at its best when members are able to bring their concerns to the table and have them heard.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that you’re aware of this bit of trivia, but people watching at home, and even some members here in the Legislature, may not know this, so I think it’s worth mentioning: The motto “Audi alteram partem”—I took Latin back in school, by the way.

Mr. Jim McDonell: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It was a long time ago, and my Latin teacher, God bless her, would probably criticize me for my pronunciation of Latin. But that particular motto is one of a series of Latin phrases carved in the chamber of this legislative building. It challenges the members of the provincial Parliament to “Hear the other side.”

Mr. Speaker, when the government spends as much time hearing opposing viewpoints as it does criticizing and dismissing them, then will we truly strengthen the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity; my pleasure.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s good to hear the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex debating this bill, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. Speaker, we have been talking about this bill, and the theme is kind of a consensus in the House, and he alluded to it as well. The title of the bill is a great title, but there’s not much meat to the title; there is no real content to back that title up.

We also talk about the fact that this really is a housekeeping bill. In one of the areas in the schedule, number 1, they’re talking about allowing a broader expansion of e-documents in the Provincial Offences Act to be submitted. So, really, this is housekeeping and can be done, perhaps, through regulation. But it’s always good to make sure that we do have bills come to this House so we can have our input as the opposition.

We’re saying that we are supporting Bill 85. It’s a good thing that we have consensus in the House. Talking about the bill, as far as how much content there is in here, there’s not a lot to get into as far as opposing. One of the areas this bill expands is in

schedule 7, the stretcher transportation services; there are some regulations there that are going to be very helpful. When you have people who have private vehicles and are transporting patients from hospital to home, you want to make sure there is a safe mode of transportation between point A and point B. So there is something there with respect to something that’s going to help this Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

I look forward to it going to committee and hearing what comes back to the House and what has actually been presented at committee and strengthened this bill that we have today.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, you take the opportunity to see that Junior A hockey team now in your riding, the Hamilton Bulldogs, who were formerly located in another community in Ontario.

I want to comment on the remarks this morning from my good friend the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. It’s interesting: One of these days we’ll get that riding renamed Chatham-Kent–Leamington, which actually really depicts the geographic boundaries of that riding. I know that the former member, a great colleague and friend, Pat Hoy, wanted to make that change when he was here.

One of the most important aspects of this bill is the change to the Highway Traffic Act dealing with these transfer vehicles that are now used throughout the province of Ontario. I remember one time that I was with my good friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and we christened a brand new ambulance in the wonderful community of Renfrew, when they took over that vehicle.

What happens is that these vehicles get to the end of their lifetime. The EMS services across the province of Ontario strip all the good equipment out of those vehicles, and then they’re sent to auction houses right across the province of Ontario. These vehicles are then picked up through the auction process and used for the process of transporting patients from hospitals home or to other areas. If you’ve ever seen some of these vehicles on the road, they look pretty rickety. I think this aspect of this bill is really important, in terms of people in Ontario.

Finally we’ll put standards in place for these vehicles that are frequently used in terms of non-emergency transportation services across the province of Ontario.

We all know that we stand on the shoulders of others, and previous governments in Ontario brought in high standards in terms of commercial vehicle operator’s registration, CVOR, and this will be applied to vehicles that are doing this service.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s my pleasure to respond to the speech this morning by my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex. I really appreciate the fact that not only did he speak about what is in the bill, but he rightfully, as is our privilege in this Legislature, spoke to some of the things that the bill did not cover. That’s very, very important if we’re really, truly committed to bringing forth the best possible legislation here as a group, as a collective body.

It is important that we highlight the fact that there are issues that, if the government is sincere—I suspect there is a certain amount of sincerity in everything they do. If they’re sincere about good governance, they would have sat down with the opposition, the members on the other side of the House whom they are, by convention, compelled to listen to. As my colleague said, listen to the other side. We could have helped them. We could have helped them in drafting a bill that covered off some of the things that they have neglected in this bill.

I know that I don’t have a lot of time, so I can’t be overly specific. But he did talk about things, for example, like the issue with regard to paying the other side; not listening to the other side, in reference to the opposition, but paying the other side, in the context of the negotiation of a collective agreement. Most people out there find the concept revolting that you would pay the other side you are negotiating with, because it certainly skews the result in the end. Are you, in fact, trying to influence decisions with regard to those negotiations? I think that’s something we all need to look at.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: As always, it’s a privilege to be able to stand at my seat here and speak to the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex and the story he told during his speaking time on

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various acts.

It’s a great title, and we’ve heard this from this side of the House quite often. I’ve already had my time to speak on this bill, and a theme of that day also was that there are a lot of housekeeping measures in this bill that could have been taken care of through regulation instead of us being here spending time in the Legislature speaking about housekeeping measures.

We could be talking about oversight measures that are so greatly needed here in this province, Speaker. Currently we don’t even have an Ombudsman in the position to look over our province and ensure that we’re keeping the government’s feet to the fire. The great work that the Ombudsman did during his time here in the province—now, quite frankly, we don’t have one. I hope that we are working our way towards the process of hiring an Ombudsman and making sure that it’s a good deal here for the people of Ontario, and keeping this government’s feet to the fire. Because bills like this, quite frankly, are really not going to do anything to improve the lives of Ontarians; other than

section 7, because it’s about time that we have some oversight for the patient transfer system. That’s an important piece in this bill, but other than that, it’s a lot of housekeeping.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex has two minutes.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to thank the member from London–Fanshawe; our Minister of Agriculture, the man from Peterborough; the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; as well as the member from Hamilton Mountain, for their comments this morning.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture talked about how my riding will probably change its name to Chatham-Kent–Leamington from Chatham–Kent–Essex. I’d like to go one step further. Perhaps, in that bill, we need to add some something further. Because I love alliteration, perhaps it should be called Chatham-Kent-Leamington-Lakeshore, because I have, in fact, taken over a chunk of Lakeshore as well. Then it would be called CKLL, just for what it’s worth.

Mr. Todd Smith: So 104.5 CKLL.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Yes, 104.5.

Hon. Jeff Leal: You’ve got a good sportscaster beside you.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Absolutely.

My colleague had mentioned—and we had talked about this particular bill—that there’s an old, old commercial you may remember—I won’t tell you which one, but you probably can figure it out—where the little lady says, “Where’s the beef?” This is actually what I would call a “vegetarian bill.” I loved it when she said it. As a result of that, there is a lot of stuff in this particular bill that could have been cleaned up.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a good idea shouldn’t care who owns it. I want to just read again the motto of this Legislature: “Audi alteram partem.” It means, “Hear the other side.” I believe that the government needs to take a little more time to hear the other side, because you know what? Contrary to, perhaps, their beliefs, we do come up with some good ideas as well, and we listen to them as well. We would encourage them to hear the other side and put a little more beef into this particular bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure. While you’re chatting, I will continue along unless my time is up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. Bonjour.

Ce matin, on va avoir une petite discussion sur le projet de loi visant à renforcer et à améliorer la gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant diverses lois. Eh! C’en est une bouchée, ça. C’en est une bouchée, mais si tu regardes à toutes les cédules qui sont proposées, de la cédule 1 jusqu’à 7, essentiellement, c’est beaucoup de nettoyage qu’on est en train de faire. Mais ce sont des petits pas par en avant.

Ce matin, je veux porter attention particulièrement sur deux cédules : ce sont les cédules 4 et 7 dont je veux parler dans mon discours.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it’s always a pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I want to say good morning to Mrs. Trepanier, who is probably watching this morning. Good morning to you and to Rose. You are always some great inspiration to me because when I do go out and visit you, at the long-term-care facilities, you always fill my ear with my oratorical skills, which I always try to improve on a regular basis. Sometimes I still make errors and you are always eager to help me and correct me, so good morning to you.

Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses some matters that are important and need to be addressed, but mostly, as my colleagues have pointed out throughout the House, this is a thin omnibus bill, consisting of seven schedules on completely unrelated housekeeping issues. It looks to amend issues with the Ministry of the Attorney General, specifically the Courts of Justice Act; there are issues around the Ministry of Labour and allowing for and improving the ability to collect monies owed to employees; and there are also components that address the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. So there are a few different ministries that are covered throughout this schedule.

The one thing I do want to point out and raise with the government is, in particular to

schedule 1—I won’t spend much time on it; I hope they do.

Schedule 1, the amendment to the Courts of Justice Act: to add proceedings under the Civil Marriage Act (Canada) to the list of proceedings that are within the jurisdiction of Family Court. The

schedule is also amended to permit additional family law proceedings to be added to the Family Court’s jurisdiction by regulation and would create a senior advisory family judge. This position will instruct the Chief Justice on matters pertinent to family law.

Other changes—this is what I want to raise attention to and hopefully raise a few eyebrows with the government—in

schedule 1 bring the province in line with federal law around the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (Canada). That was a law that was imposed by the then Harper government on to First Nations communities and which raised a lot of controversy within those communities. I would hope that this government has learned from those errors and has reached out to First Nations communities and taken the opportunity to consult with them on how this affects them, and also consult with them respecting the matrimonial interest acts that they have developed in their own communities. I raise this with the government in an attempt to have them reach out to First Nations as well.

I want to go back to, particularly,

schedule 7. With respect to the Ministry of Transportation, again, there are minor changes, but important, in terms of allowing or improving the regulations and safety around ambulances, prescribing the inspection and maintenance standards and ensuring that the prescribed equipment is on board. That is going to be very key, because essentially, right now, there are no regulations. There is, particularly in my riding, a pilot project that is in place. I would like to see it continue; however, we need greater transparency and regulation.

While we are talking about the Ministry of Transportation and safety, it is important to remember how much outsourcing and privatization have put the lives of individual Ontarians at risk. I want to remind everybody of the risk that has been put on Ontarians, particularly with the Auditor General’s report that came out about the snow removal process. The Auditor General released a very scathing report that went into details that looked at the snow removal process and how it affected Ontarians by its outsourcing. She compared it to when it was not outsourced and also to when it was outsourced.

What is very troubling is that the Auditor General came out with a report that conclusively stated that lives were lost—yes, Mr. Speaker, lives were lost because of this outsourcing. The Ministry of Transportation is essentially responsible for the roads that were not cleared properly because of this outsourcing—roads where snow removal was not conducted in a proper manner or in an efficient manner. It left people driving on roads that were in terrible condition, resulting in accidents, and those accidents resulted in fatalities. These fatalities were avoidable.

It’s very troubling that the government decided to go down this route. The evidence all points to the fact that this route is not the right way to go, and we’re still going down that route now. I’m hoping the government listened to that report and plans to, for the upcoming winter, change the process, come up with an alternative, and perhaps go back to public snow removal, because the system is broken and is clearly not working.

In particular, in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin and across many northern and rural ridings, we have seen the shortcomings—actually, rather, the complete failure of snow removal throughout northern Ontario.

I spend many of my days travelling to and from Queen’s Park, particularly to my riding and within my riding. My riding is very big, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I have seen many individuals have close calls. I’ve seen others in ditches. I’ve seen people injured. I’ve pulled individuals out of those ditches.

There’s something that we need to learn through this bill. It’s got a very nice title: Strengthening and Improving Government Act. Well, let’s do that. Let’s have the discussion. Let’s challenge ourselves in order to make things that much better.

I want to touch a bit as well on

schedule 4, for the Ministry of Labour. The amendment that the government is suggesting does achieve an incremental improvement, but does it truly actually improve the government? I don’t think it does. This is what we see in the Ministry of Labour: If you don’t have compliance, if you don’t have enforcement and if you don’t have the resources to put into it—let me rephrase: no compliance, no enforcement, then there is really no point for this legislation. No enforcement, no resources: Why are you putting this piece of legislation forward?

Because there’s really going to be no substance in order to bring the changes that the Ministry of Labour needs to provide or needs to act upon, in order to bring enforcement. Again, if there are no resources, there’s no enforcement.

I want to go back to the services that are going to be affected across my riding through this, and the complaints that I’ve received from many individuals. Not only in Algoma–Manitoulin but across northern Ontario, we’re seeing an attack on ServiceOntario kiosks that are throughout northern Ontario. These kiosks are having their hours reduced. The services that are normally provided at these kiosks are no longer going to be provided.

I have seniors who are going to have to drive longer distances, particularly on Manitoulin Island and Gore Bay, as a matter of fact—which is a lovely community, as you know, Mr. Speaker—who are going to be challenged. Now they’re going to have to take their driver’s test at a distance farther away from their home. People across the North Shore in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin are suffering because the hours are being reduced. Certain kiosks are being shut down.

These are things that are not acceptable. When we’re talking about a bill which is entitled the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, I’m sorry to say, but I don’t see it in Algoma–Manitoulin; and that’s just not acceptable. People in my riding deserve to have a lot better, and our government needs to provide them with a lot better service as well.

There are many good things—some that are incremental, some that will make a change—in this bill, but some could be done a lot better. As a representative from northern Ontario, and particularly my great riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, driving safety is paramount in my riding. I want people to take their time. Winter months are coming up. We need to change our driving habits, not just those who are coming from northern Ontario to southern Ontario, but particularly those who are coming from southern Ontario to northern Ontario.

I took the time to try and highlight some issues that I hope the government will heed. I wanted to highlight those issues from a northern perspective.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: A bill of this kind allows, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin has suggested, an opportunity to take specific instances that affect a particular constituency and deal with those.

I’m particularly interested in the non-ambulance transportation of patients. More and more, we see on our highways, although sometimes within a community, these vehicles that are going from place to place, transporting individuals who require medical transportation, but not necessarily in a place where you require paramedics, who do an excellent job.

It’s important, as this bill does, that it prohibits STS providers from providing services if they don’t have a valid CVOR certificate. It prescribes requirements and specifications for the identification of STS vehicles, to distinguish them from ambulances. That’s very important for people to know. For ambulances, as we know, we have to get out of the way immediately and allow them to go through. These vehicles are non-emergency, but they are important.

I think what this bill does, among many other things—you might say they’re minor amendments, but they are significant nevertheless. What it does is make it a safer trip for people. It sets out rules so that people know what they’re getting into when they get into one of these vehicles. In the past, there was a bit of vagueness there that many people said required some action on the part of government. This is just one of those pieces of action. I commend the member for suggesting some of the other improvements he thinks are necessary.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Pembroke-Nipissing-Renfrew.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Close enough; we’ve got the geographical area right.

Again, it’s a pleasure to comment on the speech this morning by the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. And again, he spoke to some things that the bill doesn’t address. That’s been our concern from the start. You know, the government should have expected this response.

I did have a chance to speak to this bill a little while back. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to complete my speech because the objections raised by the government were so strong that, at the end of the day, the Speaker shut my debate off. I was shocked, and I hope that it never happens again. I was hurt, because I had a lot of things that I wanted to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Since the member felt that the Speaker shut his debate off, the member had had many warnings—I happened to be the Speaker that day. He had numerous warnings about getting off track, and that’s why he was shut down, as he put it. I just want to put that in the record so we don’t have a misunderstanding. Thank you. Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. I wasn’t referring to who was in the chair that day, because I try to forget those things. It’s not personal for me. But I wanted to point out that when that happens, the member loses the ability to speak to the things they wanted to speak about that are missing from this bill.

When the government entitles a bill “good governance”—the audacity to actually bring a bill under that name to the House—they should expect that the opposition is going to see that as an opportunity to speak about all of the things that could be done to make government better in the province of Ontario. Maybe they could have addressed the issue of time allocation motions and how they’re used in this House to shut down debate. I know I got shut down personally, but the government shuts down debate period.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I just want to commend our member from Algoma–Manitoulin for, again, talking about the items that were in the schedule. This bill is very much procedural. He pointed out a couple of those items, one of them being Family Court law. Again, when he described that, as I was listening to him and as I had read before, it’s just making things updated; right? There is really no legislation that’s going to be affecting someone adversely in there. In that respect, the bill is important to make sure that things are done that are going to help people and not be opposing someone’s rights or access to courts and claims that they have. That was great, as far as that goes with the

schedule that’s in this bill.

The member also talked at length about snow removal, which is an extremely important northern issue. After the Auditor General’s report, there were many glaring recommendations that could have happened in order to prevent accidents, fatal accidents in some cases, when you’re talking about road safety.

He talked about ServiceOntario and how the reduction of the service hours of the kiosks are affecting people accessing ServiceOntario. That’s extremely important, and we know there is a lot of outsourcing of ServiceOntario services. When you’re calling that 1-800 number, you don’t even know if the person is in Ontario.

When it comes to good governance and strengthening government, there are certainly things this government is lax in doing, and one of them is paying attention to the accountability and transparency piece. I’m looking forward to the Financial Accountability Officer’s report. Today the officer is going to report about Hydro One. That will give us some interesting suggestions about good governance, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m very pleased to rise and to speak to this bill. I believe that all sides of the House have acknowledged that there is some really good work done on this bill and there are many important items that we need to be addressing as government.

One of the items that I note is that this is also about how we work intergovernmentally, and in particular with municipal governments. I would note in this bill that there is an improvement to the City of Toronto Act, making it possible for the work that is currently under way with the city of Toronto’s Toronto Transit Commission and the regional municipality of York to reach an agreement about how they will work seamlessly across jurisdictions for the new Toronto-York Spadina subway.

This particular extension of the subway is the first time that a subway will cross municipal boundaries. It’s very important that this relationship is a strong relationship, that it’s done well, and that this is a successful extension to the subway line.

We know that these investments that we are making in infrastructure across the greater Toronto and Hamilton region—the intent of this is to make sure that we have a seamless regional transportation system. This bill is addressing how these two municipalities will work together, making sure that it’s seamless, that it’s efficient, that it’s effective, and that we provide improvements to our rapid transit system.

Speaker, we have to work together. I know that businesses have talked about the need to get their workers to places, and this will improve the efficiency and the productivity of our region.

I agree with the comments that have been made, that this is a needed improvement, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but chuckle. It just goes to reconfirm why people in northern Ontario are so frustrated.

I am sorry. I highly respect the Associate Minister of Finance, but to talk about subways in response to my comments that I made this morning, and housekeeping—you’re right. In Brantford, Hamilton, Toronto, Waterloo—it just goes to prove the point why so many northern Ontarians are so frustrated that their comments and their views are not being heard here at Queen’s Park.

I invite you. Come and join me in Algoma–Manitoulin, and we’ll take the subway from Gore Bay into Blind River, and then we can take the train from Blind River into Wawa. I’m sorry. That’s how disconnected the issues are. I can’t help but chuckle, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister without Portfolio: Thank you for your comments, and for actually listening to the comments I made this morning.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke brought up some of the issues that I had touched on which aren’t in this bill. My mother had this expression: S’il faudrait, tout bien, puis en tout cas. What that means is, “What could have, what should have and what wasn’t to be.” There are a lot of those things that could have been included in this bill. I want to thank him, because he triggered that thought about my mom, and I always like thinking about my mom. She’s a fantastic woman. If she would be here today, she’d be sitting—thank you, my friend, for triggering that memory.

The member from London–Fanshawe was exactly right and bang on. I did talk about family law, and I did raise a flag that this government should be reaching out and actually sitting down with First Nations communities in regard to how this particular act is going to be affecting their community.

I just want to finish off by saying that northern Ontario just wants to be heard. When we are not, this is what happens. It begs me to chuckle this morning.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s nice to be standing, as my shoes are now dried out, after the walk in to Queen’s Park this morning. That was quite a rain out there this morning. I guess that would be the remnants of Patricia that we’re experiencing here in the GTA. But we’re dry now, and we’re ready to move on to what has been dubbed as a rather provocative bill—at least the title of the bill has been a bit provocative, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act—because what it does is, it elicits a response from the opposition parties that you would expect.

It’s time to start strengthening and especially improving the government that we’ve had here in Ontario for the last 12 years, a government that doesn’t understand rural Ontario. And, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin just illustrated, it is very frustrating and it’s almost laughable, what we’ve been experiencing here. I’m sure there is a subway in Wawa, but they serve sandwiches at that Subway. It’s a different kind of subway in Wawa.

This bill, as I believe the way the member from Algoma–Manitoulin described it, is a thin omnibus bill. It affects 15 different acts, eight ministries, and it’s thin on detail. There’s not a lot of meat on the bone here, is the way that it’s been described this morning, and I would have to agree.

I am very fortunate to have an OLIP intern in my office. Her name is Justyna Zegarmistrz—and I apologize to the folks at Hansard for that, I will give you the spelling in a moment. Justyna has gone through the bill, and we’d like to talk about some of the issues that we have with the bill because there are so many areas within each of these ministries where problems that we’re seeing in Ontario today aren’t being addressed by this particular bill, and they really could have. All you have to do is look at the front page of the papers—all of the papers—in the last week and you will clearly see that we need to improve government in Ontario.

Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, attempts to bring forward updates to amend Ontario legislation so that it remains current and relevant for Ontarians. Despite affecting over 15 pieces of legislation and involving over eight ministries, Bill 85 remains limited in its scope and is a piece of legislative housekeeping, rather than a bill that introduces real, substantive change in Ontario. Considering the eight different ministries affected by the bill, the government missed an opportunity to address the numerous deep-rooted problems present in each ministry.

Considering first the Ministry of the Attorney General, Bill 85 is largely amended only to include new federal legislation. With some additional clarifications on the duties of the senior advisory family justice and the streamlining of internal procedures and financial procedures, the bill could have been more comprehensive in its reach and scope to strengthen and improve government, as is the title of the bill.

There have been issues that have been addressed in the House recently by the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington in question period with the Attorney General, and by the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock in relation to the shootings that occurred earlier this fall in Wilno and some of the issues that we’re facing with repeat offenders who are let back into the community without signing the proper documentation: These are some of the items that could have been addressed in this piece of legislation.

The amendments affecting the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services are a further example of the surface-level reach of this bill. In this amendment, the bill aims to introduce some minimal cost savings, allowing all out-of-date certificate stock to be used before reprinting new stock. Surely more costs savings could be found than just the recycling of stock in a ministry as large as this, but that’s as deep as the government went in this bill.

Moving on to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care: Bill 85 aims to protect the Ontario Medical Association as a representative body for Ontario’s physicians and as its adviser to the government on health matters. Providing immunity to the representatives of the Ontario Medical Association and restricting individuals from pursuing civil action against agreements between the OMA and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care does very little to affect real change for the thousands of Ontarians who are depending on our health care system.

Understandably, this amendment may be necessary to protect representatives from legal action, from negotiations done in good faith, but Ontarians need a stronger and improved health care system, not just amendments that are housekeeping in nature.

Rooting out waste and building a patient-centric model of health care delivery is what Ontarians really need, and I know that’s what all of us as MPPs continue to hear about at our constituency offices and through the correspondence from our residents. A bill that’s supposed to strengthen and improve government should be more ambitious and farther-reaching than the one that’s presented by the government in Bill 85.

Continuing down the list, the Ministry of Labour seeks to modernize outdated regulation by bringing Ontario’s legislation in line with federal legislation. Updating the classification and labelling of hazardous workplace materials by introducing the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals is important to keep Ontario workers safe, but, again, this government needs to move beyond just scratching the surface. I’m sure more can be done to keep Ontario’s workers safe. In my office, we hear all the time from people who have WSIB issues. There are so many workplace issues that could have been dealt with in this bill that aren’t addressed at all.

In regard to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, further minor housekeeping changes are being introduced. Amending the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act to send receipt notices of bylaws to the Minister of Finance rather than to the Minister of Education does not enact real change for our citizens.

Allowing the city of Toronto to expand cross-border transit to pick up and collect fares in neighbouring jurisdictions is a small step forward, but the root of transit issues in Toronto and across the province remains a serious one, especially for those folks who are requiring medical treatment. It’s impossible for some of the residents in my rural riding to get to Kingston to receive the treatment that they need, which is a two-hour drive or a two-and-a-half or three-hour drive, in some cases, depending on where you are in the North Hastings part of my riding.

Repealing obsolete subsections of the Municipal Act and adding minor amendments may be necessary, but this government can and should do better. They can do more in a bill they entitled the Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

For the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Bill 85 follows a similar path as with the previous ministries examined. Clarifying the continuity of the ownership of college assets from the board of directors to the college and allowing the college registrar to appoint investigators to investigate the conduct of a member is, once again, a surface-level change that fails to consider the other issues facing this ministry. Our community colleges are facing cutbacks on a regular basis. Loyalist College in my riding, in the Belleville area, had to remove $4 million from its budget recently. That’s a serious cut to the services that are provided at Loyalist College.

In respect to the Ministry of Transportation, Bill 85 makes important first steps towards ensuring the regulation of drug-impaired driving. By following suspensions for drug-impaired driving similar to those for drinking and driving, law enforcement officers will be able to do more to make sure roads are kept safe for Ontarians. Nevertheless, the bill does little to detail how drivers will be tested for drug impairment. Ensuring that drug-impaired drivers are apprehended off the roads is critical, but so is ensuring that testing procedures respect the rights of an individual and are conducted in a manner that can be upheld in the courts.

Furthermore, this bill also makes vague and unclear amendments to regulate medical transportation services. The safety of medical transportation services is undeniably important, but the Liberal government also has an obligation to the citizens of Ontario to outline how they intend to regulate these services. Ontarians certainly haven’t forgotten the government’s track record and lack of oversight in other scandalous affairs such as Ornge services.

While Bill 85 brings in some necessary updates to Ontario’s legislation, this government needs to do more to make real change to each of these ministries so that they always serve and act in the best interests of all Ontarians. As such, we’ll be supporting this bill while imploring the government to instigate deep-rooted change, especially in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Transportation.

In my riding, in the Quinte region, Quinte Health Care is facing major, major cutbacks: $12 million had to be cut from the budget. They’re currently going through the process of removing services from four hospitals in our region: Belleville General, Trenton Memorial, North Hastings and Prince Edward County Memorial Hospital. Nurses are going to be laid off again. We saw 58 of them laid off earlier this year. More are going to be laid off next year. These cutbacks are serious, and they’re tied to a funding formula that the government has brought in that relates health care funding to growth in a community.

But this government, at the same time, is bringing in legislation in the Legislature prohibiting growth in rural areas because they believe what’s right for Toronto, or right for larger urban centres, works in rural Ontario. It clearly doesn’t. The people in Prince Edward–Hastings need their health care services just as much as those here in the GTA.

This bill could have been a whole lot better.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, it’s a pleasure to rise on the behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I want to commend the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. He’s absolutely correct. Let me be clear: There are no subways in Algoma–Manitoulin. However, there is a Subway sandwich shop which you can normally take, not with a token, but maybe with double cheese and double meat, which can get me from Manitoulin Island to Blind River and on to Wawa. I just want to make that clear, my friend.

His comments were very much in line with what I have to say. When you look at these schedules, schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are basically in line in regard to doing some housekeeping. This is exactly what this bill is: It’s housekeeping. With the title of the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, if we’re going to do something, let’s do something real. Like you get the double meat over at Subway, let’s put some meat into this sandwich so that we can actually accomplish something.

He did talk about the MTO issues that would come in regard to enforcement and the resources. Actually, there are some issues in regard to individuals getting proper notification when it comes to having suspensions or enforcement done. There have always been some individuals that have had issues with receiving mail service and proper notification. Where is the accountability going to be when an individual presents himself at a licensing bureau to make sure that that notification was provided to him so that there is no disruption? In northern Ontario, there is no transit system, so transportation is a big issue.

We are looking at

schedule 7 to create a structured transportation services

section under the highway act by doing that and by setting those standards. We need to make sure those standards are there, because if there’s something that we’ve learned through privatization—and we don’t have to look too far. We just have to look at Ornge and the problems that happened there, and the problems that are potentially going to be happening with the privatization of Hydro One. Learn from the mistakes, and make sure we don’t repeat them.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I enjoyed the comments of the member for Prince Edward–Hastings. One of the great advantages that we have in this Legislature is the opportunity, as individual members, to access the Ontario legislative intern program students who come and provide us with the kinds of services that are very helpful in carrying out our responsibilities as members. So I thank the member for sharing with the people who are watching today the advantage of having a legislative intern, many of whom go on to be very successful in life. Some stay in government; some go into the private sector. It’s a very, very good program, and we’ll be celebrating it soon.

There’s a bit of a dilemma that we encounter with bills of this kind. Having sat in opposition probably longer than I’ve sat in government, I know the arguments the opposition is going to make. Here’s the dilemma: What happens is that the opposition hates omnibus bills. Yet today, the members are telling us that there should have been more things in this particular bill. I understand that. This is a so-called housekeeping bill, which is not designed to have huge changes that are going to have major effects on the province. You don’t want to see those in an omnibus bill. I understand that.

But a bill of this kind looks at various housekeeping items or technical items that have to be corrected, and does so.

The member mentioned a number of areas that are significant. His observation that all of us are looking forward to a more patient-centric health care system—he mentions that—I think all of us are looking forward to that.

But I do come back to that dilemma of shall there be more in the bill or less in the bill? I’m sure if we’d put more in the bill, there would have been complaints justified by the opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The good government act is not just a housekeeping act. I think if it was a housekeeping act, it would be better described as sweeping things under the carpet. That would be the Liberal way of doing housekeeping. I think it does demonstrate just how lazy this government is, and how cavalier they are when it comes to taking their responsibilities to the people of Ontario.

I just want to draw people’s attention to

schedule 3 of this good government act.

Schedule 3 limits any civil proceedings against any person or any agent or any part of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as a result of—I’ll read them:

“any recommendation made to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care” for,

“(

i) insured services under the plan;

“(ii) the amounts payable under the plan in respect of the rendering of insured services ...

“(iii) other amounts payable to physicians by the minister or the crown.”

It just so happens that there is a dispute under way with the physicians in Ontario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. There is much discussion going on about the need for the physicians to sue this government in civil court for the handling of the fee service clawbacks and rate reductions.

Is this really a housekeeping bill or is this what we have seen in the past from this government: changing the law to prevent somebody from taking an action against this government for unlawful or inappropriate actions earlier? We saw it with the Beer Store and the LCBO, where they changed the law to prevent a civil suit from coming forward. I’d like to have the senior member from the Liberal Party maybe address that in his next comments instead of the OLIP intern program.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for his comments on this bill and the things that he talked about that weren’t in the bill but are, quite frankly, very important.

One of the things that he mentioned was the WSIB. I picked up on that one because I found it very interesting that he talked about how his office is inundated with WSIB and issues within that, but it’s not addressed in this bill.

If my memory serves me, it was the Conservatives who actually gutted the WSIB and created—I know, Yak, it’s hard to swallow—the problems that are going on within the WSIB. The Liberals have continued to push those matters even worse with the hiring of a former Conservative to be the chair. Elizabeth Witmer is now the chair—for several years—and since that time the WSIB cases have tripled and quadrupled in my office with people being denied and services being taken away from them after several years of needing WSIB through no fault of their own; being injured on the job and being told that they don’t qualify for WSIB funds.

One case in particular is a man who worked in a steel company and was hit with 6,000 pounds—or tonnes, whatever it would be—of steel. Whichever it is, that hurts a body. Yet the man is told that he can work in a theatre accepting tickets from patrons who are coming to the theatre. Those are the kinds of things that I know both of these parties have created in our WSIB system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, the Minister without Portfolio—the minister of Blue Jays games, as I like to call him, and I congratulate him on a good season for his favourite baseball team—the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who brought up some good points as well, and also the member for Hamilton Mountain in regard to WSIB, which is an ongoing issue that all of us are dealing with in our constituency offices and are trying to solve some of the problems that exist.

Specifically to Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act—as I mentioned off the top of my remarks, this is a government bill that elicits a reaction from the official opposition members and the members of the third party because we’re in agreement over here that this government hasn’t been very well run over the last 12 years in a lot of different areas and there is a lot of improvement that is necessary.

You don’t have to look any further than the newspapers across the country and across the province this past week. We have situations where unions are being paid with blank cheques, basically, and there are no receipts involved. I think this is part of what the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington was talking about, where things are just being swept under the carpet.

An auditor would never go for what has occurred when we’re talking about the negotiations in the teachers’ unions and the millions of dollars that have been spent by the government to pay the union members for the costs of negotiations, which have never been put in black and white in a receipt anywhere. There are no receipts. That’s why our party has called in the Auditor General to look into those transactions, to find out why those occurred and whether that money was indeed necessary to be spent. These are the types of things that we need to hold the government to account on. These are the kinds of things that should be addressed in government bills.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure, as always, to rise in this House and to represent my riding and speak on behalf of the good people of Essex county. It’s an honour each and every day, and today it is particularly interesting.

I’m compiling a little bit of information here, Speaker. What I’d like to highlight to viewers who are tuning in this morning, mainly my mom and my dad, who always watch—hi, Mom and Dad. There are two for sure that we know. For everyone else that’s tuning in who is interested in the ongoings of this place, as everyone should be, I would like to inform them of something that’s interesting about this particular bill, Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. It sounds quite compelling and quite grandiose in that it should—

Miss Monique Taylor: Gripping.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s gripping. Everything should get better from here on in because we are strengthening and improving government. Who wouldn’t want to do that? Who wouldn’t endeavour to do that, Speaker?

However, this bill, I believe, is at eight and a half hours of debate on the clock, as it were, today—which is good. That’s good, wholesome debate. We are discussing the issues that are relevant to the piece of legislation. I would like to inform viewers who are tuning in that of the 36 bills that the government has introduced or tabled in this House since the beginning of this session, 14 of them they have time-allocated, so they have cut debate on 14 of them.

I’d like to thank my colleague the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who gave me the list of the bills there: Bill 6, Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act; Bill 7, Better Business Climate Act; Bill 8, Public Sector and MPP Accountability—they go on. There are 14 in total that they’ve cut debate on, things that are important, that have real significance to the prosperity of the province and real effect in the lives of the people of the province. They deal with health care. They deal with jobs. They deal with climate change. They deal with MPPs’ accountability. They deal with child care.

They chopped off debate, really stymied the process in this place and limited the democratic right of all elected members to discuss and bring forward the concerns of their communities. However, when it comes to a bill that is, by and large—and it seems to be agreed upon by all members of the House—a housekeeping bill that has minimal impact on the lives of folks, they’re ready to drag the puck on this thing.

I’m dumbfounded at the priorities of this government and their ability to actually take into consideration the voices of people from Algoma–Manitoulin, the voices of people from Essex, from Hamilton Mountain on other substantive bills. They don’t want to hear about it. They want to jam through and ram through their agenda. However, when it comes to something that’s innocuous, like Bill 85—and I urge again viewers who are tuning in to look it up, take a look and see how this bill will affect your lives; it really will not. They have a majority government.

You would expect that they would put a lot of thought into the construct of the bills to ensure that there is full consideration given to the needs of the province. This is not one of those bills.

As my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo stated, when she spoke to the bill, the Clerks at the table must be shaking their heads in reference to who writes these types of bills on behalf of the government, because they are not substantive bills.

Again, being housekeeping, it affects seven schedules, in very minimal ways that are not contentious. As opposition, we don’t see any nefarious actions on behalf of the government built into the language of the bill. One of the aspects, however, does have some impact on the transportation services which were referenced as “stretcher transportation services” in Ontario. They are currently unregulated. These are private operators that operate ambulance services and medical transportation services.

What this is essentially, as I see it, is the Uber of ambulatory services. This is what they’re doing. They are regulating an unregulated aspect of emergent transportation services, and they absolutely should.

It’s interesting to note that they first indicated they needed regulation on this service in 2011. So they needed four years in total to realize that they should bring forward legislation—again, an astounding indication of, frankly, laziness, ineptitude, inability to actually prioritize the needs—real, substantial needs. It’s incredible.

Interjection: It could be done by regulation.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It could be done by regulation. They’ve wrapped it into this bill. It is the most substantial part, and I’ll focus on that because it really has a little bit of meat to the bone here.

New Democrats believe that stretcher transportation must be regulated. There’s no question about it. Up to 500,000 people in the province are transferred in this mode. We think they deserve to know that it is a mode of transportation that’s regulated, that has oversight, that is safe, that is affordable, that is effective, and that the people who operate it are qualified and in it for the right reasons.

We’ve seen another mode of private transportation that supports patients and those in medical emergency situations, under the vision of this government and under the watch of the government: Ornge air ambulance. We saw that absolutely fail, again with the guidance of the Liberal government. They took their eye off the ball. They allowed a private operator to bilk the system—milk the system, rather—and it failed.

Thankfully, we had an effective opposition to raise those questions, to hold the government accountable and to make the necessary changes. I want to thank our colleague from Nickel Belt, who really fought a great and valiant fight on that and brought some necessary changes.

The patient stretcher transfer service indicates that they will require that these operators receive a CVOR. Stretcher transportation providers would be regulated now as commercial vehicles. It’s interesting that they didn’t, prior to that. They would have been just private vehicles, similar to the ones we drive each and every day. So now they will need to be registered as a CVOR and be inspected by Ministry of Transportation inspectors.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: That’s a good thing.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a good thing. It’s the mechanism in which we regulate and inspect commercial vehicles. Let’s see if they’re going to be given the resources to actually be able to inspect all of these vehicles. Typically, CVOR checks are done through the service centre or MTO checkpoints along major highways, or random stops by Ministry of Transportation officials.

I’d be interested to see how many of these vehicles they are going to be pulling over while they’re in transit. You’re going to be reluctant to pull over an ambulance, when you see them going from point A to point B, to do a CVOR check.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: They’re not emergency vehicles. They’re not.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Well, we’re going to see. Even though you would assume that there’s a patient in there who requires transportation, you’re not—I’m not quite certain how that’s going to work, if you think about it, in a real, functional way. You may have to look at delivering some more resources to ensure that those checks are actually happening.

There are glaring omissions in the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Essex. There’s an ongoing conversation between the minister and the member from Essex while he’s speaking. We talk through the Chair.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s mostly been me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Mostly to you. Thank you.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I apologize, Speaker. I should go through you, and I will.

Ontarians deserve clear and transparent regulations to protect vulnerable patients who need non-urgent transportation to get to hospital, to get to medical appointments. That’s what they expect. That’s what they want to see. However,

schedule 7 in this bill does not offer that level of accountability and oversight still, even though acknowledging that they require regulations, it doesn’t.

There are no details in the bill about regulations being imposed on stretcher transportation through the providers, the LHINs, in our province. There are no complaint mechanisms for patients or families. There’s no mention of accountability mechanisms on how the ministry would deal with contraventions to the stretcher transportation service providers’ provisions. And there is no assurance that contracts between hospitals and stretcher transportation services would be made public. We won’t know how much this service is costing us as opposed to how we are certainly able to do that when it comes to managing our ambulance services.

Speaker, it’s always a pleasure, and I appreciate the indulgence through the Chair.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It is my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today my friend from Amherstburg Suzanne McMurphy, and the grandparents of page Marco Di Laudo, Ron and Marlene Regher, who are here from Leamington. I’d like to welcome them to the House today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my delight to welcome a group of students all the way from Ukraine studying parliamentary procedure. We have here today Valentyna Sakhno, Kateryna Zhupanova, Ivanna Antonova, Artur Nadiiev and Marian Taranovskyi. They are all here to witness question period.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’d like to welcome two businesswomen visiting from Beja, Portugal, on the occasion of the 32nd cultural week of Casa do Alentejo in my riding of Davenport, Florbela Nunes and Delfina Marques of Capote’s Emotion. Bem-vindos.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It is with great honour this morning that I introduce Chef Michael Smith in the east members’ gallery today—he is the host of Chef Michael’s Kitchen and Chopped Canada—and Ron Lemaire, President of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.

The chef is a brand ambassador for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association Half Your Plate initiative. They invite all MPPs to a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230 to discuss the need to encourage the consumption of additional servings of healthy fruits and vegetables.

The CPMA Half Your Plate initiative is a simple and understandable way to promote healthier eating and will be the focus of Chef Smith’s cooking demonstration this evening.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It is with great pleasure that I introduce a guest, Debbie Wilson, who is in the gallery. She is from our constituency office in Kanata and she is here to help us with her Magna Carta evening at Fort York tonight.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I apologize. I failed to introduce these two wonderful guests earlier, Andrea Micieli and David Valentin, also in the members’ gallery, as well as Celso Pereira from my constituency office. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Education has said she was unconcerned about a potential investigation of the Auditor General into the $3.74 million given to teachers’ unions. Does the Premier share similar feelings?

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier instruct her members of the public accounts committee to support an Auditor General investigation into the unprecedented windfall given to teachers’ unions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is, the Auditor General has the authority to look at what she chooses to look at. Of course, we always will work with her and co-operate with her.

As I know has been said a number of times in this House, we are talking about a process that has been successful. Students have remained in the classroom. The agreements were in line with our net-zero bargaining framework. That successful process required extra resources. I know that the members opposite know that there has been a change, that there has been a transitional process, and it was very important that the resources be in place to make that successful.

Mr. Speaker, the other reality is that this money has not flowed. So, again, I say to the members opposite, I’m not sure how familiar they are with the negotiating process and the collective bargaining process, but the agreements are in place. The money has not flowed yet, and I’ll have more to say about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: It’s not just the PCs that are calling for this investigation. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said, “The Premier appears to be funnelling public money into these unions, who then turn around and spend money campaigning for her government.” They added, “This is not the kind of conduct we should expect from a transparent and democratic government, and we think the Auditor General should investigate.”

Will the Premier show some integrity, pre-empt our motion and open the books to the Auditor General?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I said in the first answer that of course we’ll work with the Auditor General. We will absolutely work with the Auditor General, as we always do. She has the opportunity to look at what she chooses to look at.

The cost of the successful process that has been undergone with the unions was offset by savings that were found through the collective agreements. The funds did not come out of the classroom.

But I said in the first answer that this money has not flowed, and that is the reality. It’s part of the agreement, but it hasn’t flowed, and teachers’ unions will provide an accounting of their costs. Before that money flows, there will be an accounting of how that money was used—or what that money is for and what the costs were. That is, I think, Mr. Speaker, consistent with what we have been saying about the cost of getting these agreements.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I still didn’t hear an unequivocal “yes” to pre-empting our motion at public accounts. Even the Toronto Star has called the cheques to the unions “disturbing.”

If the government has nothing to hide, if everything is by the book, then why not let the Auditor General review these expenses? Why won’t the Premier let the Auditor General review the $3.74 million handed out to the unions?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the Auditor General wants to look at this process, she is welcome to do that. We will work with her, we will co-operate with her, as we always do. But, remember, this is a successful process. It’s the first time that this particular process has been used. There were resources required to get these successful agreements, and that has happened.

This money has not flowed. The teachers’ unions will be required to provide an accounting before the money flows so that it will be clear exactly how the costs were incurred. But the fact is, it’s been a successful process. It was a transitional process because it was new, and the money has not flowed. There will be an accounting from the unions about how the costs were incurred.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. After almost a week of questions, it’s clear the Premier doesn’t want to tell us where the $2.5-million payout came from. The Premier uses buzzwords like “overall compensation package” and the “cost associated with negotiations.” Nobody in Ontario buys those answers.

If the Premier won’t tell us where the money came from, can you at least tell us what it bought you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s talk about where the money came from. In fact, when we said that the funds, these resources to complete the successful bargaining process, where that money came from—it came from things like early, discounted payout of retirement gratuities; lowering the cost of sick leave; making the delivery of professional development more efficient. So when I said that that money came out of the overall compensation package, those are the kinds of examples, because sick leave, retirement gratuities—that’s all part of the compensation package of teachers. That’s where the money came from.

It didn’t come from the classroom; it didn’t come from programs for students. We have been clear about that. Those of the kinds of examples of where the money came from to make sure the resources were in place to get—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Don’t point the finger over here. You’re in charge.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Every day that we ask these questions, there are new talking points, new spin, new answers. It’s not acceptable. The Premier’s unwillingness to tell us where the $2.5-million payout came from leads me to talk about where it could have come from.

What does $2.5 million from the classroom look like? It looks like 75 fewer educational assistants. It looks like a week of healthy breakfasts for 10,000 classrooms. It looks like over 33,000 grade 9 math textbooks. It looks like almost 115 students on a field trip to the Ontario Science Centre. Was it worth it, Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When you’re dealing with a group of people who do not believe in the collective bargaining process and therefore have little experience of how it actually works, and don’t understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When a group of teachers who are organized into a federation make a decision that they choose to offset one expense by reducing the payout of retirement gratuities or they take a change in sick leave—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —then that allows that money to be used for something else. This is not money that was coming from classroom programs. It’s not money that was coming from student programs. I’m sorry—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just to make sure you heard: The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time. The member from Renfrew, second time. I’m not going to accept shouting people down.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m sorry that the member opposite doesn’t understand the process. I’m sorry that they have no interest in actually understanding how collective bargaining—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: What I understand is, $2.5 million isn’t available to students in Ontario.

While this government is giving away much-needed money in our system for pizzas and hotels, the Liberals are turning their backs on students and parents. Assumption Catholic School parents in Ottawa had to raise $50,000 for a new playground. Parkview Public School parents in Unionville aimed to raise $25,000 for musical instruments, smart boards, novel sets, and numeracy and literacy centres. Rosebank Road Public School in Pickering purchased 11 fans for classrooms.

Those students and parents shouldn’t be fundraising for fans while the Premier shrugs off $2.5 million and calls it business as usual. Again I ask: What did the $2.5 million buy?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s what I understand: When we came into office, 68% of students in this province were graduating from high school. Mr. Speaker, 84% of students in this province are graduating from high school. That’s because we have invested in more teachers. It’s because we’ve put in place student success teachers, who work with kids who were falling through the cracks under the previous government, who didn’t have the supports in the school to help them to navigate their way through high school. It’s because we created literacy and numeracy specialists.

It’s because we have put in place the supports that students need. That’s what I understand about why our education system in this province is one of the best in the world. Over the last decade, people have come from all over the world to see how we have transformed our education system. We’re going to continue to do that.

Interjections.

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

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier met with the Prime Minister designate. The Premier’s statement indicates that she talked about infrastructure. This was an opportunity for the Premier to ask the incoming federal government to follow through on their promises for new infrastructure money so that the Premier doesn’t have to sell off Hydro One. This is what Ontario families, municipalities and business have been asking the Premier to do. Did the Premier stand up for Ontarians and ask the Prime Minister designate to provide the money promised so that she—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It goes both ways.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order.

Finish, please.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Did the Premier stand up for the people of Ontario and ask the Prime Minister designate for the money promised, so that we can build the infrastructure we need and not sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Did I stand up for the people of Ontario, and do we have a Prime Minister now who is going to work with people across the province and is going to work with Ontario to make the investments we need? Absolutely.

I’m very proud of the work that I have done. I’m very proud of the fact that we now have in Ottawa a government that understands that working with Ontario, working with Premiers across the provinces and having an infrastructure plan across the country is in the best interests of this country. I am so proud of that fact.

But does it mean that as provinces we abdicate our responsibility? No. We have to continue to do the work we know is necessary for our province to be able to work now with the country, so that we can build up the whole country.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier used to say that the sell-off of Hydro One was a difficult decision. But we’ve clearly seen that there are other ways to get the money we need for infrastructure. After all, the sell-off has never represented more than 3% of the Premier’s infrastructure promises. Yesterday, when she met with the Prime Minister designate, she had a chance to get herself off the hook of this difficult decision and, at the same time, stand up for the 80% of Ontarians who do not want to see our Hydro One asset sold off.

Did the Premier make a case to the Prime Minister designate for the sufficient infrastructure funding that we need so we can build the infrastructure we need and so that she does not sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think this is a very revealing question, because what it says about that party is that, given half a chance, they would abdicate the responsibility to make difficult choices. They would not set priorities. They would not take the tough decisions that are actually what leadership means.

You have to take tough decisions. You have to look at the whole scenario and you have to say, “Okay. What is in the best interests of the people of this province?” Every municipality across this province has a need for infrastructure investment. If, as a province, we don’t take that seriously and we don’t follow through with our plan to invest $130 billion over the next 10 years, then we have no right to ask the federal government to step in and take us off the hook. We have to step up, we have to take responsibility and work with our partners at the federal level.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Just because the Premier has made a bad decision doesn’t mean that the Premier is stuck with that decision. As the facts and circumstances change, so can her decision. What the Premier is clearly saying is that she was presented with the nearly unprecedented opportunity to stand up for the people of Ontario, and she refused to do so. The Premier has stubbornly dug in her heels and refused to listen to Ontario families, municipalities and businesses that have all made it clear they do not want to see our Hydro One sold off.

She never needed to sell off Hydro One in the first place. But now, with the billions of dollars in federal money promised for infrastructure and transit, the sale is even less necessary. Why did the Premier refuse to stand up for Ontarians, to insist that we have sufficient infrastructure funding to build the infrastructure we so dearly need and not sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we just see this differently. I think that it is the responsibility of the government in Ontario to take the initiatives that are necessary for the people of Ontario, to make the investments in roads and bridges and transit, in hospitals, in schools and in water systems that we know are so desperately needed across the province.

At the same time, it is critical that we have that federal partner; no matter who the federal government is, we need that participation of the federal government. Thankfully, now we actually have a federal government coming into office that understands that, that is going to work with the provinces and territories across the country to support and to make those investments that are necessary. But they expect, as they have a right to, that provinces will take their responsibilities seriously. That’s what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question again is to the Premier. Here’s another track: Tomorrow, the Financial Accountability Officer will release his report on the impact of the sell-off of Hydro One. This is despite the fact that the Premier has failed to follow through on her promise of openness and transparency, by refusing to provide all the necessary documents requested by his office. However, after months of hiding this wrong-headed sell-off from the public, the people of Ontario will finally get a glimpse into the impacts of this sell-off.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier: Will the Premier commit today, in this House, to follow through on the advice and the recommendations of the FAO and his report?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have been part of the appointment of the FAO, Mr. Speaker. We appointed him. I have not seen the report. I look forward to seeing the report and seeing what his recommendations are.

But what I know, as the Premier of this province—what we know, as a government—is that we must make investments in infrastructure, and that people’s quality of life depends on our ability to make those investments that will allow them to move more freely, whether it’s in the GTHA or whether it’s in smaller and more rural communities, so that in northwestern Ontario, bridges won’t have to be closed because they’re in disrepair. We need to make those investments so that we have infrastructure that can be relied on by individuals and by businesses. That infrastructure investment is critical, and we will move forward with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The sell-off of Hydro One represents the biggest privatization of a public asset in the history of this province. We know that every time this Liberal government has tried to sell off or privatize an asset, the result has cost Ontarians dearly. Just look at the gas plants and the ONTC.

The Premier has avoided all public and independent scrutiny of this deal and, instead, has listened solely to her embedded banker. Thanks to New Democrats, however, this time, we have a chance to see the impacts of this sell-off before taxpayers and ratepayers are on the hook.

If the FAO finds that this deal, this sell-off, will hurt families and businesses, will the Premier do the right thing and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the member opposite is accusing us of listening to people who have experience in the financial world, who are experts, who understand how these processes work, then we did that. We absolutely did. We did listen to advisers who have experience and who understand how to do this.

Are we going to continue to invest in infrastructure? Are we going to make sure that there are protections in place in terms of broadening the ownership of Hydro One? We are. We are retaining 40% ownership. The way that electricity rates are set now by the Ontario Energy Board is the way that they will continue to be set. Will there be the ability of the government to retain control over major decisions because of that 40% ownership? Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Those protections are in place. They are in place for good reason, in order to protect the interests of the people of Ontario. But we’re going to invest in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The NDP demanded the creation of a Financial Accountability Office so that we could catch spending scandals before they happened. Ontarians watched as the sell-off of ONTC went from a $265-million savings to an $820-million loss for the province. They watched as the cost of the gas plants soared from $40 million to $1 billion.

This time, we can stop a bad deal before it happens. If the FAO reports that selling off Hydro One is a bad deal for Ontario families and businesses, will the Premier do the right thing and back down from the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said to the member, I have not seen the report. I look forward to the Financial Accountability Officer’s report.

Will we continue to invest in infrastructure? Absolutely, we will. Each one of those situations is different. It’s interesting, coming from the third party, the discussion about the ONTC. It was a very important issue in the north, in North Bay particularly, that we look at the ONTC; in Sudbury, it was a real concern that we look at the ONTC and we make a decision that was in the best interests of transportation in the north. We did that, and we worked very hard with ONTC to come up with a solution that wasn’t a complete divestiture of ONTC.

I would have thought that party that proclaims itself as supportive of the north would have understood that that was in the interests of the people in the north.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Jack MacLaren: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you gifted money without purpose or records to teachers’ unions. It was $1 million. It was $2.5 million. Now it is up to $4 million, and who knows where it will end?

Your government’s track record is that you cannot be faulted for thinking big. Billion-dollar scandals are your specialty; you are good at it. But it was never right, and it isn’t right today. In fact, this time, it might not even be legal.

Section 70 of the Labour Relations Act states that an employer cannot make a financial contribution to a trade union.

Minister, did you consider the legality of your million-dollar gifts before you gave the money away?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We actually are in the process of implementing a new labour relations process. We’re going through a huge transformation in our system.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: To the Minister of Education: Minister,

section 70 of the Labour Relations Act is very clear. Employers cannot give millions of dollars to unions. It is against the law. It is wrong.

Union members may wonder if the money given to union management was meant to influence the union’s recommendations to its membership. Parents may wonder why the money was diverted from classrooms to the union. Taxpayers may wonder if their money was wasted yet again. The members on this side of the House wonder not only about the legality of your gifts, but, more importantly, the accountability, integrity and morality of your actions.

Minister, what you did was wrong. Why did you break the law?

Interjections.

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

It would also be helpful if members on the side where the question is coming from were not engaging in conversations with either side while the question is being put. I ask the same when the answer is being put.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act is actually very—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Immediately after I ask for it not to happen, the member for Renfrew decided to do it, so he is warned.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act is actually very clear that I am not the employer of teachers in the province of Ontario, in school boards.

In fact, the reason that we implemented the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act is precisely because the school boards are the employer; the ministry is the funder. There is this dichotomy of the role, that funding and employing are actually two different roles. That’s exactly why we have the act. But what I do want to comment on is that there have been no cuts to the classroom.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Premier, today is yet another Wynne Wednesday in our public elementary schools. Congratulations for having a day named after you, Premier. It’s also the day ETFO is ramping up their work-to-rule action by pulling out of voluntary extracurriculars.

Education workers want to support students in the classroom as well as volunteer for extracurricular activities outside of their work duties. Ontario families want quality education and extracurricular activities, but this government continues to cause chaos in our schools and is forcing students and families to pay the price for a minister who can’t get the job done.

The Minister of Education has lost all credibility and needs to go. Will the Premier admit that the Minister of Education is failing our kids and causing chaos in our schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would remind the member that there are three agreements in place with most of the teachers in the province. I’d just remind the member of that.

I said earlier that the party opposite, the Conservatives, don’t understand the collective bargaining process. I understand that. I understand they don’t believe in it, so they don’t understand it. But I would have thought that the NDP actually would have gotten it, that they actually would understand the collective bargaining process, and, given that there are three agreements in place, they would understand that we have been able to come to agreements.

This Minister of Education is actually very, very skilled at her job. The fact is, this is a difficult process. The only way we’re going to get an agreement is at the table. We’re at the table. I hope that very soon we will have those agreements.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Just a note to the Premier: To bargain, you actually have to stay at the table. So there’s a lesson for you.

Back to the Premier: Contrary to the minister’s claims, which change daily, there have been many cuts to the classroom. This government brags about its plan to cut $500 million—wait for it—from the classroom. The Premier should be ashamed of her government’s record of taking away special education resources from kids that need it the most—$22.5 million, Speaker.

Our kids are paying the price for this government’s neglect of education and the failure of this minister to get the job done to avoid chaos in our schools. Our kids deserve better, and it’s time for the minister to go.

Will the Premier immediately cease issuing pink slips to education workers and instead issue a pink slip to her Minister of Education?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I got involved in provincial politics because of education, because I believe so strongly that reinvesting in our education system after eight years—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve watched in this province over the last 10 years as test scores have gone up, as kids have gotten more support, as more kids are graduating from high school. As I said, when we came into office, 68% of kids were graduating from high school; now 84% of kids are graduating from high school. That’s a huge, huge improvement. That’s at the core of this discussion.

We need to continue to improve our education system. That’s why it’s so important that we engage in a respectful collective bargaining process, that we have that relationship with our education workers and our teachers. We’re going to retain that, because we have engaged in a respectful process. The only place to get the deal is at the table, and we’re—

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

Aboriginal economic development

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Earlier this week, the minister and the Premier were at the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers’ 22nd annual national conference. In their remarks there, the Premier and the minister highlighted our government’s commitment to key aboriginal economic development initiatives announced within the past year, including the Aboriginal Economic Development Fund.

I’m very proud to be part of a government committed to working with our aboriginal partners to achieve real progress towards developing improved outcomes for First Nations people and creating prosperous, healthy and strong communities.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us about the initiatives the government is supporting to create new opportunities for aboriginal communities through the AEDF?

Hon. David Zimmer: I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for that question. It was indeed a pleasure to join the Premier in delivering remarks to CANDO’s 22nd annual national conference earlier this week.

Ontario has been working for many years to strengthen its relationship with aboriginal peoples and communities. Developing initiatives that improve the lives of people and create opportunities for aboriginal communities and businesses will go a long way towards improving our relationship and improving aboriginal outcomes.

The Aboriginal Economic Development Fund is a three-year, $25-million initiative that is supporting business, employment and training opportunities for aboriginal communities because when aboriginal peoples prosper, all Ontarians prosper.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m sure all members of this House are pleased to hear what a wonderful job our government is doing to help create new economic opportunities for aboriginal partners to build a stronger, more prosperous Ontario.

Creating opportunities for aboriginal communities to see meaningful employment and business development across sectors, including natural resource sectors, is the right thing to do. By providing the necessary support, we can work with them to develop long-term strategies to diversify local economies and collaborate on region-wide projects. This will help create stronger and more economically prosperous aboriginal communities.

Could the minister please expand on some of the initiatives the Ontario government is supporting through the AEDF? All members of this House want to hear this.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, since the fund was established, Ontario has invested over $7.8 million in funding 43 separate projects. These include $1.5 million over three years in grants for economic capacity-building projects, as well as business financing for promising community projects and aboriginal-owned businesses.

The Chapleau Cree First Nation is working with energy experts to develop a regional renewable energy plan. The Thessalon First Nation is receiving an Economic Diversification Grant for the expansion of its biocentre. A regional partnership was granted to Wahgoshig First Nation, who is working with Primero Mining Corp. and Northern College to develop a mining training program for its members. And Whitefish River First Nation received funding under the fund to conduct the planning and preliminary work required to support a commercial-industrial park development in their First Nation.

This is progress, Speaker. This is good for aboriginal communities and this is good for all Ontarians.

Addiction services

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, a clinic providing opioid support programs, with locations throughout Ontario, has closed an East York location, and it’s closing the Lawrence Avenue location in North York at the end of this month.

Dr. Dale Wiebe, an associate program director at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, has said, “It is a sad time for addiction medicine in Ontario.” He continued, “Closure of addiction medicine clinics will impact patients’ ability to access quality medical care, and this loss of access will contribute to the risk of relapse to substance use.”

Mr. Speaker, what does the minister say to those individuals fighting their addiction who are now at a higher risk of relapsing, and to the doctors who are forced to close the clinics that helped them?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I think the member opposite agrees that, at the end of the day, this is about patient care and the quality of care and the services that are provided to them. We have invested, over many years now, in programs to support those who, unfortunately, have these addictions to make sure that services are in place right across the province in order to support them, including the methadone and other support clinics that the member opposite is referring to.

The change that we made recently was simply to bring the reimbursement for simple urine dipstick tests, a laboratory test that those same clinicians provide in those methadone clinics, in line with new technology and what the remuneration should be and, in fact, what we are currently paying in all of the community labs when that test is performed. Again, it’s a urine test; it’s actually very cost-effective. We brought the cost that we’re reimbursing those physicians in line with what we pay laboratories.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Addiction can have a devastating impact on individuals struggling with substance abuse, as well as their families. It also has severe ramifications on government budgets: The average health and social costs are about $44,000 per addict per year. It does not make sense that this government has cut the availability of addition services in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the minister himself is a doctor and has seen this first-hand. Why is the minister allowing the government to slash fees and funding for addiction services and for the individuals who are most in need of this government’s help?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, that’s just not an accurate portrayal of what this government is doing. We continue to invest. We increased the investments that we are putting towards mental health and addictions, and addictions particularly. Our expert group, our leadership council on mental health, has addictions as one of the areas that they’re specifically looking at.

What we’re talking about here is a simple test. The patient still gets that test. We brought the remuneration to what it should be based on technology advances and innovations. We’re paying them, and in fact we’re still paying them more than what we pay our community labs for this simple urine dipstick test. I think that’s an appropriate thing to do; I think that’s an efficient use of resources so we can stay focused on the patient and making sure those patients get better.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. More than 185 municipalities have passed resolutions opposing the sale of Hydro One. In Durham, these municipalities include Whitby, Clarington, Pickering, Uxbridge and my community of Oshawa. These municipalities know that their rates will rise after Hydro One is sold. They know that manufacturing and auto sector jobs will disappear with the rising costs of electricity. Will the Premier listen to municipalities like Whitby and Oshawa and stop her short-sighted sell-off of Ontario’s oldest and most important public asset?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to reinforce what I said earlier about the need for investment in infrastructure, because I know for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Durham region is very interested in increased investment in infrastructure. Our members from Durham are very clear that they would like to see enhanced investment in infrastructure.

So I would say to the member opposite that as she talks about the importance of listening to municipal councils, she might want to take into account what those municipal councils say to us every time we meet about the need to invest in infrastructure, including transit, including expansion of roads and bridges. That is exactly why we have had to make decisions in order to find the resources to make those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Of course, I appreciate hearing that the Premier does acknowledge there is an area east of Toronto. That’s great.

The Ontario Energy Board clearly cannot say no to Hydro One. This winter, peak-hour electricity rates will be 25% higher than they were last winter.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s enough.

Finish, please.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Just imagine the rate increases that Hydro One will demand when private profits drive all decisions.

The Minister of Energy says people should just stop using electricity during the day. I suppose he thinks Whitby and Oshawa’s factories should shut down during the day as well.

Will the Premier listen to municipalities like Whitby and Oshawa and stop her sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member is really starting with a very, very false premise. Hydro One does not set its own rates now; it will not set its rates later, Mr. Speaker. She talks about private companies automatically being able to raise rates. Private companies like Enbridge and Union Gas are also regulated by the Ontario Energy Board, and their rates have been going down over the last five years. It is totally independent.

In addition, in terms of planning the system, it’s still within the responsibility of the IESO; Hydro One will not plan the system. The Ontario Securities Commission will require them to disclose salaries and many other things, such as quarterly audited financial statements, to be made public. There is good governance.

The premise of the question, that rates will go up because its ownership is being broadened, is totally, absolutely incorrect.

Wetlands conservation

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Ontario’s biodiversity and natural heritage contribute substantial ecological and economic benefits to our province. Part of that biodiversity is Ontario’s wetlands. Wetlands provide essential benefits, including helping to protect our water supply from excess nutrients, like phosphorus, that can lead to algal blooms.

Ontario has approximately 24% of Canada’s wetlands and 6% of the world’s wetlands. Our wetlands are clearly an incredible and essential resource.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please explain to the House what our government is doing to protect Ontario’s wetlands?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Ottawa South for the question.

Our government knows that wetlands provide many important economic, ecological and social benefits, including reduction of flood damage; improvements to water quality; habitat for plants and animals; and fishing and hunting opportunities.

Our ministry, under the leadership of my parliamentary assistant, the member from Burlington, is currently conducting a review of the province’s wetland policy framework.

A wetlands discussion paper has been posted on the ER, and I encourage interested Ontarians to comment on the paper before October 30, 2015. The feedback we receive on this paper will help identify challenges and opportunities associated with wetland conservation in Ontario. This input will be used to inform development of a strategic plan for Ontario wetlands that will guide the government’s actions over the next decade.

Speaker, we’re committed to protecting and preserving the province’s wetland resources and will continue to work closely with our partners on this file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer and for his leadership on this important issue.

I’m pleased to hear that our government is taking a proactive role in protecting Ontario’s wetlands, and I encourage all Ontarians to provide comments on the wetlands discussion paper.

By the 1980s, almost 70% of original wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield were converted for other uses—in some parts of southern Ontario, 90%. Many Ontarians are concerned that these losses may still be occurring.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please explain what our government is already doing to restore Ontario’s wetlands?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I again want to thank the member from Ottawa South.

We support on-the-ground wetland conservation through strategic partnerships, agreements, competitive granting programs and tax incentive programs.

In fact, Speaker, the Ontario government is an active participant in the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, a collaborative government–NGO partnership which seeks to implement wetland conservation activities.

Last year, we provided Ducks Unlimited, for example, with $275,000 to support wetland conservation projects under the EHJV program. My ministry’s Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program provides up to $20,000 in financial support to organizations for similar projects. The Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program provides for 100% property tax exemption on eligible conservation lands in return for landowner agreement not to undertake activities that will have a negative impact on the natural value of those lands.

We value wetlands in the province of Ontario and continue to work with our partners to ensure their sustainability in the longer term.

Correctional facilities

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Shoddy conditions at the Liberals’ new, gold-standard Toronto South Detention Centre are again putting the lives of corrections officers at risk. Three weeks ago, a female officer was trapped inside an elevator with multiple inmates for over an hour. Thankfully, the officer was not harmed, but you can only imagine the fear that she felt.

Shockingly, elevator issues were reported to your ministry months ago, Minister. Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why he has allowed the prison’s countless problems to go unaddressed, and why no action was taken on the known elevator issues?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member for the question. I can assure the member opposite that the officials in my ministry work extremely hard to make sure that conditions, as they relate to facilities in a detention centre, are always met.

Obviously, I can’t speak to the specific circumstance he’s raising in question period, but I’ll be more than happy to get him a response to that.

I want to reassert very clearly that we take the health and safety of our correctional staff and of inmates very seriously. There is constant work that is ongoing in making sure that our detention centres are safe and secure and, of course, in ensuring that there are proper conditions in them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Again, back to the minister: Two weeks ago, the Toronto South Detention Centre security monitor control system went down. This system controls the entire facility, from emergency alarms, cameras, doors, locks, to intercoms, and much, much more. This system is the heart of this facility and must be functional.

Facility security problems are a public safety threat. Officers are tired of reporting the same problems over and over again. They’re scared to come to work in a deadly work environment. They have lost faith in the ministry and are worried that any negative reports or audits will be buried.

Will the minister take immediate action at Toronto South Detention Centre and conduct an in-depth safety review for public release?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I mentioned earlier, our staff works extremely hard and very closely with our correctional officers and staff who are front-line in our detention system to ensure that they are operating in a proper function for the safety and security of our communities and that of our staff. This is paramount.

Speaker, as we transform our correctional system, Toronto South Detention Centre plays a very important role in that transformation. TSDC, as it is known, houses innovative programming and health care services and improves our ability to rehabilitate offenders. It has both a medical unit and a dedicated infirmary which has been open since June of this year. They currently have five mental health nurses and operate a forensic early intervention service which is the first of its kind in Canada, in partnership with CAMH.

These are the kind of transformation activities that we are working on to ensure that we provide effective rehabilitation and re-education for offenders.

Rail safety

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Premier, it has been eight very long months since the train derailment, the explosion, the huge fire and the oil spill into the Makami River just outside of Gogama in my riding. Most recently, the local person in charge of testing water quality has resigned his job. The people of Gogama and Mattagami have been deeply affected by the CN derailment. They’re having a tough time, with very little help.

Premier, why is the provincial government missing in action? Why are the local people left to take on CN by themselves?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, they aren’t left by themselves. We’ve had multiple ministries, including our staff, on site. Water quality testing has been occurring and reported through the Sudbury public health unit. There has been very, very careful supervision and testing, and I can go through that privately with the member in some detail.

We have a great concern in Gogama. There have been two rail derailments. Had they been further down the track in the city, we would have had something similar to a Lac-Mégantic. This government and my colleague the Minister of Transportation have been very assertive with the federal government. We are now looking, with the new federal government, to this issue being taken more seriously. We monitor it very carefully to see that CN fulfills its responsibilities. If they don’t, there are stronger measures we can take.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: If this train had derailed, sending 10 flaming cars full of bitumen in the Humber River here in the GTA, there would be flocks of lawyers and of investigators to help locals fight CN tooth and nail, but, as dead fish and oil continue to appear on the water surface, this government has left the people of Gogama to fight on their own.

Premier, how come after eight months, no one is willing to say something as simple as, “It is safe to eat the fish”? What is the government doing to ensure that the health of the people, to ensure that the quality of the water—will the Premier’s newfound relationship with Ottawa help to make sure that hazardous cargo doesn’t go through our communities so that no one has to live through what the people of Gogama and Mattagami are living through right now?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for her question. As the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change said in the opening answer, and as I believe everyone in this chamber would know, that dealing with rail safety, while of paramount concern to the province of Ontario, is primarily actually exclusively a federal responsibility.

Over the last 16 months, I’ve had the occasion to raise the issue of rail safety directly with the now, soon-to-be former, Minister of Transport for the federal government. We have corresponded back and forth several times about this issue, as have other Ministers of Transportation across the country, because at the provincial level, we recognize the importance of making sure that the federal government takes their responsibility in this regard safely—that advocacy will not end on behalf of the people of Ontario. We’ll continue to talk to the feds about making sure that we get this right.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. The Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan was launched in March of this year. Since then, the permanent Roundtable on Violence Against Women was established, along with the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

The government has launched a very successful media campaign, seen by millions of people around the world on TV and the Internet. Yesterday, the minister introduced the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act.

Speaker, could the minister please tell this House what Ontario has been doing since March to help stop sexual violence and harassment and to support survivors?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Kitchener Centre for this very important question. I want to thank her for her work as the Chair of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment, and I want to thank all members of this Legislature who are on that committee doing excellent work.

The government knows that all Ontarians deserve to feel safe from sexual violence and harassment in their communities, in their workplaces and in their schools. That’s why, since we launched the action plan in March, we have increased and stabilized funding to community-based sexual assault centres, to hospitals and to sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres.

As the member mentioned, we have also been running a very successful province-wide public education campaign using the hashtag #WhoWillYouHelp, and over 83.5 million people have viewed this ad.

I was pleased to rise in the House yesterday to introduce the legislation. I’ll talk more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I, too, would like to thank the minister for her answer and for her dedication and commitment to this very important file, so thank you to you.

This kind of continued investment across ministries to various supports for survivors is welcomed right across the province. In fact, yesterday at our announcement, we were joined by numerous stakeholders across Ontario, including Sara Casselman, who is with Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region in my riding of Kitchener Centre. I know that she was very pleased to hear yesterday’s announcement.

We look forward to hearing more details on the legislation tabled yesterday by the minister. Specifically, this bill will amend six government acts. Could the minister please describe the changes that this legislation is going to bring in, if passed?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: As the member mentioned, the legislation would amend a number of government acts, such as removing the limitation period for all civil sexual assault actions.

It will also eliminate the two-year limitation period for victims of sexual or domestic violence to apply for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

It will also require employers to investigate and address complaints of workplace harassment, including sexual harassment, and require employers to take all reasonable steps to protect workers from workplace harassment.

It will also require colleges, universities and private career colleges to have a stand-alone sexual violence policy that is developed with student input and reviewed every three years.

Additionally, the legislation will require the notice period to end tenancy for survivors of domestic and sexual violence—that notice period will be shortened.

All of the amendments are very important and I hope that I can count on the entire House to support this very