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

February 23, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Feb-23 (PDF)

L046 - Mon 23 Feb 2015 / Lun 23 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 23 February 2015 Lundi 23 février 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Pension plans

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Employment practices

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Aboriginal economic development

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Immigrants

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Leo Jordan

Heritage conservation

Community Recognition Awards

Off-road vehicles

By-election in Sudbury

Elijah Marsh

Winter road maintenance

Ice yachting championships

Family skating event

Introduction of Bills

Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour porter un toast à l’Ontario

Municipal Elections Amendment Act (Voting Hours Extension), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales (prolongation des heures de scrutin)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Winter road maintenance

First responders

Credit unions

Health care

Employment standards

Distracted driving

Off-road vehicles

Hospital parking fees

Hispanic Heritage Month

Alzheimer’s disease

Office of the Ombudsman

Water fluoridation

Taxation

Orders of the Day

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Todd Smith: As you know, this is Black History Month in the province of Ontario. Today, we have 300 black students from across the greater Toronto area here for their 10th annual Canadian Black Caucus day at Queen’s Park. The theme is Inspiring Youth Politically, and I’d like to welcome all 300 students and Gwyn Chapman, who is the president of the Canadian Black Caucus.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce in the members’ gallery Simon Giannini, a good friend. Happy to have you here today, Simon.

Hon. David Zimmer: St. Agnes Catholic School is in my riding, and today I want to welcome Ms. Laverty’s grade 4 and grade 5 students, along with their principal, Mr. Shea. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Susan Christianson and Jesse and Joel Britton. I’d just like to point out that Joel is 10 years old and has taken a keen interest in politics. Welcome.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce three very special guests who are here with me in the House today: in the east gallery, my parents, José and Arminda Bento, and the smartest 10-year-old that I know, my son André.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today a very good friend down at the ROMA conference, along with many other fine municipal leaders: The mayor of Carleton Place, Louis Antonakos, is joining us here today.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome two post-secondary co-op students who are here with us today. Patty Chang and Aaron Lau are both working on the ministry’s Student Voice initiative. Student Voice is a great initiative that allows Ontario students to have a voice in their learning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to welcome, in the members’ west gallery here at Queen’s Park today, the mayor of Bracebridge, Mr. Graydon Smith, and the deputy mayor, Mr. Rick Maloney. They are down here for the ROMA/OGRA conference.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us today in the east gallery are students from Victoria Park Collegiate Institute, my former school. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming Megan McLean, the mother of our page captain today, Natalie McLean. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We really enjoy having Natalie as our captain and our page in our sessions today.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to welcome to the House today Adam Nowina, a great supporter and a great constituent in Etobicoke Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the House, up in the members’ gallery, two students from the University of Akron’s Canadian studies work experience program. Please join me in welcoming Jermaine Collins and Emily Maher as they begin their 10-week placement with the member from Halton and the member from London–Fanshawe. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Gerry Lougheed Jr., chair of the Sudbury police services board, told Mr. Olivier, “I come to you on behalf of the Premier.” Then he allegedly offered him a government job to step aside as a candidate. But in January, your spokeswoman said, “Gerry Lougheed is not government or Liberal Party staff. He speaks for himself.”

Premier, given that Mr. Lougheed is not a government employee or a Liberal Party staffer, where did he get the authority to offer Mr. Olivier a job? Did you give it to him?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said repeatedly, and as I said in a statement on Friday, we reached out—I reached out—to Andrew Olivier. Just to remind the member opposite, I didn’t have to have a conversation with Andrew Olivier. I had a conversation with our past candidate because I wanted to make sure he understood that I knew it was a difficult moment that he wasn’t going to be the candidate in the Sudbury by-election and we wanted to find ways for him to stay involved, if that’s what he chose to do. We wanted to make some suggestions about ways that he could be involved, in the same way that I hope any leader would want to keep a past candidate involved in the party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: The official opposition and the NDP directly mentioned Gerry Lougheed’s involvement in Wynnegate 43 times during question period last week. The government mentioned him only once. And, Premier, since the Chief Electoral Officer’s report was made public last Thursday, Mr. Lougheed Jr. has not been mentioned at all by your government. You’ve gone silent on Mr. Lougheed.

Premier, you said Pat Sorbara will step down if charges are laid. Will you ask Gerry Lougheed Jr. to do the same if charged?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the member opposite well knows, Gerry Lougheed Jr. is not a member of my staff. I have taken, and I do take, this matter very, very seriously; I’ve said that repeatedly. I understand that it is extremely important that, when there are allegations, we take them seriously and we answer the questions, and we are doing that.

But here is the fact: I made a decision that we would have a candidate in the Sudbury by-election—who is Glenn Thibeault. The past candidate was not going to be the candidate, and there was outreach to him to try to find a way for him to stay involved. That is why I had a conversation with him; that is why Pat Sorbara, my staff member, had a conversation with him, to see if there were ways he might want to stay involved.

As I said, I would expect that of any leader—that they would want to keep past candidates involved in the party.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Gerry Lougheed Jr. raised over $100,000 for your federal friend Justin Trudeau. Last week, a senior Trudeau staffer said that Mr. Lougheed Jr. would not be involved in the coming federal election.

Premier, clearly the federal Liberals are willing and probably quite eager to cut this bad apple loose, even after the mountain of money he raised for them. So, Premier, why don’t you do the same and demand that Mr. Lougheed Jr. resign from the Sudbury police services board? Do the right thing.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As we discussed last week, we don’t direct the Sudbury police services board. They will make their decisions.

What we did was, we—I made a decision that we would have a candidate in the Sudbury by-election who would be Glenn Thibeault, who is a terrific candidate and is going to be a terrific MPP for Sudbury and a strong voice for the community.

We reached out to the past candidate to see if there were ways that he wanted to be involved. But that decision had already been made that a different candidate was going to be in place. That’s a difficult moment. As I said in my statement on Friday, I’ve been a failed candidate. I know, at the moment when you know that you’re not going to be the candidate, that that can be a difficult moment. That’s why we made the outreach, to see if there were ways that the past candidate wanted to be involved—they were suggestions, Mr. Speaker. That’s exactly what we did, and I would expect that of any leader.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. When this Premier came to office, she said that she’d be different from the last guy. However, the Premier has failed to hold herself to the high standard expected from her office. If charges are laid by the OPP, we expect that she’ll step aside until they are resolved. If a conviction is made, and if it is found or alleged that the Premier directed Ms. Sorbara or Mr. Lougheed to have those conversations with Mr. Olivier, then the Premier should resign.

A dark cloud hangs over your office, Premier, with four OPP investigations. Premier, will you step aside if there are charges laid against Pat Sorbara or Gerry Lougheed?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a very interesting question coming, hard on the heels of a report from Elections Ontario that actually exonerated me, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say to the member opposite that I understand why the member opposite wants to continue to stir this pot, because the member opposite actually doesn’t want to talk about the fact that we are making decisions that are going to strengthen this province.

I was at the ROMA/Ontario Good Roads Association this morning, in a very good meeting with the executive, and had conversations with the folks in the halls about the investments that we’re making in infrastructure, about the fact that we’re working with them in partnership, Mr. Speaker. They have concerns about asset management and about new revenue tools. Those are the things that they want to talk to us about.

I made it clear on Friday that if there are charges laid, then of course Pat Sorbara will stand aside—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier. Last Friday, Premier, you could have come in and announced that Ms. Sorbara and Mr. Lougheed would step aside until the OPP investigation concluded. But, Premier—and I said this before—if you continue to stand by them, you, Premier, will eventually fall with both of them as well.

Premier, you’ve spouted ludicrous explanations for your behaviour that fall well below the dignity that your office should hold.

Put an end to this distraction that you’ve created for your government and your caucus. Premier, answer the question: Yes or no, did you instruct Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed to make those calls to Andrew Olivier with options if he agreed to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been extremely clear that any suggestion that anything was offered in exchange for any action is false. I’ve said that over and over and over again. The fact is, a decision had been made that Glenn Thibeault would be our candidate in Sudbury. That decision was made.

The conversations with Andrew Olivier were about keeping him involved in the party. That’s the fact. I have said that repeatedly. I will continue to answer that question because that is what happened. It is what I would expect of any leader, that they would want to keep a past candidate involved, particularly at a time which was difficult, when they were not going to be the candidate in the next election. That’s the situation we were dealing with. That’s why those conversations were held.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, again, back to the Premier: You know, Premier, something just doesn’t add up between the call with Pat Sorbara and Mr. Olivier. You said there was a conversation that took place after you had already told the former candidate about the fact that you were going to be appointing Mr. Thibeault. Now, if that’s true, why did your deputy chief of staff tell Mr. Olivier he would “force the Premier to move to the appointment process” if he didn’t step aside? According to the Chief Electoral Officer, that chat took place the day after you claim that you told Mr. Olivier of your decision.

Premier, is the Chief Electoral Officer’s time frame correct, or have you forgotten when you instructed Pat Sorbara to make that call to Andrew Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is exactly correct. I had a conversation with Andrew Olivier. Pat Sorbara had a conversation the next day. I had made it clear to Andrew Olivier that I would be appointing Glenn Thibeault as the candidate. The conversation Pat Sorbara had with him was about how he might stay involved in the party if he chose to do so.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to continue to do the work of government, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear on Friday: If there are charges laid, then Pat Sorbara will step aside.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The OPP anti-rackets squad is investigating senior Liberals for their role in the Sudbury bribery scandal, and instead of apologizing or accepting responsibility, the Premier believes she’s above the law. Court documents say the investigation hinges on “the corrupt act of dealing in appointments.”

Somebody made the decision to engage in that corrupt act and offer Andrew Olivier a job so he could get out of the way. Who directed Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara to offer Andrew Olivier his choice of jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party knows, there was no commitment to an offer of anything for any action. The leader of the opposition knows that. In fact, I believe that Andrew Olivier is on the record saying that there was no specific commitment in our conversations. So the fact is that there was no offer for any specific action. That did not happen.

What we did was, we tried to work with a past candidate who was not going to be our candidate, and that’s a hard thing to accept, but he was not going to be our candidate, and we worked to keep him involved.

I hope that the leader of the third party is working with Mr. Cimino and Ms. Shawbonquit to make sure that they are involved, because those are people who have made a sacrifice; they’ve put their names on the ballot. My hope is that they are going to be able to be involved in the party if they chose to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When this Premier learned that David Livingston was the subject of a police investigation, she rushed to say, “This is not the way a government should operate, this is not the way a Premier’s office should conduct itself and it is not the way my office operates.”

But when her top aides are under investigation, the Premier is singing quite a different tune. The Premier obviously thinks it’s okay for her office, her Premier’s office, her government to operate with top aides under investigation.

So I ask the Premier again: Who directed that Andrew Olivier would be offered a job?

Interjection.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I freely admit that I wanted to find ways—if this young man wanted to stay involved in politics, wanted to stay involved in the party, I wanted to work with him, and I wanted us to be able to provide suggestions. Because there are a lot of ways to be involved in politics, short of being a candidate. That’s what those conversations were about.

The leader of the third party knows full well that there have been many changes made, in terms of the retention of documents, in terms of the training we’ve provided on the advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There are many changes that have been made as a result of actions that were taken in the past.

We are constantly working to make sure that we find ways to do government in a way that’s open and transparent to the people of the province. That’s exactly why I called Andrew Olivier. I didn’t have to call Andrew Olivier. I didn’t have to call the past candidate, but I wanted to let him know that I understood this was a difficult moment—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and if he wanted to be involved—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Just over two years ago, the Premier made a commitment to Ontarians. Referring to a decade of Liberal scandals, she said, “We must acknowledge our mistakes, take responsibility for them and work together to guarantee that they are not repeated.”

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Two years later, here we are, all over again, with an investigation into “a corrupt act of dealing in appointments” and “corruption between politically sophisticated parties.”

Will this Premier keep her word of two years ago to Ontarians, admit her mistakes, take responsibility and tell the people of this province who issued the order that Andrew Olivier should be offered what the OPP and Elections Ontario refer to as a bribe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just be clear that the leader of the third party is dealing in allegations at the moment. The Chief Electoral Officer said clearly last week, and I quote, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” That’s the moment we’re in right now: There are allegations and there’s an investigation.

To the leader of the third party’s question about whether I will continue to learn from mistakes: That’s what I believe good government is about. When there are mistakes made or when there are issues that have to be dealt with, of course we learn from them. I also believe that’s the human condition. The way we go through life is, we start something, we take action, and if it doesn’t work, then we find a way to correct it. That’s how I function, that’s how our party functions and that’s how we will continue to function.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. On Friday, the Premier claimed she decided to appoint her candidate in November. Funny, because on December 11, Gerry Lougheed called Andrew Olivier and said, “The Premier, up to now”—December 11—“has always said to me she’s in favour of a nomination race. So I want to make that really clear. She’s never said to me, ‘I want to appoint him.’”

Premier, those are two very different versions of what happened. My question is: Which one of them is actually the truth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I had a meeting at the end of November with Glenn Thibeault. I made a decision at that point to appoint Glenn Thibeault. I believed at that point, after my meeting with him, that he would be the best candidate for the Sudbury by-election, that he would be the best representative for Sudbury. Everything that happened after that was about making sure he became our candidate, and if the past candidate wanted to stay involved, that he had the opportunity to do that.

I understand the back and forth of question period; I do understand that. But accusing people of being criminals while an investigation is going on, I think, is wrong. I do not think that’s right, and so I reject the premise of the leader of the third party’s questions.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Now that her office is facing down federal prosecutors, the Premier is claiming that she told Andrew Olivier that she was going to make an appointment. Well, that’s odd, Speaker, because on December 12, after Andrew Olivier spoke to the Premier, he said to Pat Sorbara, “The Premier has to make her decision.” Pat Sorbara didn’t dispute that. In fact, she said the Premier is “going to have to make a decision around the appointment.”

Once again, the question to the Premier: two very different versions of what happened. Which one are we to believe? Which one are Ontarians to believe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just be clear: In my conversation with Andrew Olivier, the whole reason I reached out to Andrew Olivier was that he was not going to be the candidate, that I had made a decision that I was going to appoint Glenn Thibeault and that I wanted to make sure that if Andrew Olivier wanted to stay involved, if he wanted to be involved, he would know what the options were so he could make a decision about how he might want to be involved.

That’s the conversation I had with our past candidate. That’s the conversation Pat Sorbara had with him the next day. It was all within the framework of my having decided to appoint Glenn Thibeault as the candidate in the Sudbury by-election.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, Ontarians are hearing two versions of the bribery scandal, and they both can’t be true. There is a version where we hear three people on tape, a tape that was made long before there was a police investigation. In that version, the Premier hadn’t made a decision about an appointment. In fact, Gerry Lougheed said, “I want to make that really clear.”

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: “She’s never said to me, ‘I want to appoint him.’”

And there’s another version, from the Premier herself, made under the hot lights of—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Education, come to order, please—second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to let me do my job.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, there’s another version, from the Premier, made under the hot lights of a possible criminal charge, claiming that she made a decision about an appointment back in November.

I’m going to repeat again: two different stories. I ask the Premier to come clean with the public and tell us which one is true.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve done that and I will do it again. I had a meeting with Glenn Thibeault at the end of November. I made a decision that Glenn Thibeault would be the best candidate for us in Sudbury. I made that decision.

I didn’t make that decision public; it’s true. I didn’t call the leader of the third party and I didn’t call the interim leader of the opposition. I didn’t make a public statement about that. But I had made that decision at the end of November. Once I had met Glenn Thibeault, that decision was made.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is also for the Premier. Premier, you held a press conference on Friday. The whole world was hoping that you would do the right thing. Instead, you doubled down on your sad response from the day before.

Premier, you had the chance to do the right thing. You had the opportunity to cut Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed loose, at least until these investigations are complete. Instead, you chose to stand by them. According to the Chief Electoral Officer, they have broken the law, yet you continue to stand behind Sorbara and Lougheed. Is it because you gave them direct orders to offer inducements to Andrew Olivier? Premier, are you not in fact protecting them so that they’ll protect you?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, are you not in fact—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Time’s up.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just be clear about what the Chief Electoral Officer said last week: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” The investigations are entirely independent, Mr. Speaker; they are ongoing. Right now, we are dealing with allegations. In my statement on Friday, I made it clear that if there are charges, then my staff member will step aside. I made it very clear exactly why we had the conversations with our past candidate. I will continue to do the work of the government while those investigations are going on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, you came to office saying you would hold the office to a higher standard. In your two years, you have failed every time you’ve been tested on that promise. You failed again last week. This is your chance for a re-test. Stop protecting yourself by protecting Lougheed and Sorbara.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development—second time.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Two years ago, you said you would run things a new way when it came to ethics and accountability. When it comes to ethics and accountability now, you’re just running away.

Premier, you’ve been caught in your own snare. Now it’s time to come clean. Order the resignations of Sorbara and Lougheed, or consider your own.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On this issue of doing things differently, one of the things I said on Friday—and I used this example because I think it is a stark example of a change. There have been members of the opposition who have come forward and have asked for appointments from our government in exchange for stepping down from their seats. I’m not suggesting that this is the first time in history this has ever happened; I know there are lots of examples of this. But what’s different, Mr. Speaker, is that I said no. On the advice of my staff and in consultation with my staff, we said, “No.

No, we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to proffer an appointment in exchange for an opposition member stepping down from his seat.”

That is an example. I was using that as an example of how things have changed and how we are doing things differently.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s deputy chief of staff and campaign director, Pat Sorbara, is facing investigations for bribery under

section 96 of the Election Act.

Will the Premier explain to Ontarians why Pat Sorbara is working in the Premier’s office when there’s clearly evidence that she has broken the law? Isn’t it time for Pat Sorbara to go?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, it appears that hell hath no fury like a party scorned.

The Premier made a decision to appoint a candidate in Sudbury. The candidate she supported for that nomination is a man very worthy of the kind of confidence invested in him by the Premier.

On this side of the House, we actually like to keep people engaged in the political process. We understand that there are many ways to serve, one being as a candidate, but many other ways as well.

Having made the decision to appoint Glenn Thibeault as the candidate, people did reach out to say, “How can you stay involved? There are many ways to stay involved.” That’s the right way to do politics, and I think the member opposite should take a lesson from the Premier on how to keep past party members engaged.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Staying involved doesn’t mean you can break the Election Act.

Gerry Lougheed is the chair of the Sudbury police services board. He’s supposed to be part of the system that enforces the law. But Gerry Lougheed is facing investigation for bribery. There is evidence that he broke the law.

Can the Premier explain to Ontarians why she thinks that Gerry Lougheed should still be the chair of the Sudbury police services board?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the member opposite knows very well that the fact that Mr. Lougheed is the chair of the Sudbury police services board is a decision of the police services board. They in fact met last week, Speaker, they looked at the facts and they voted to keep Mr. Lougheed as the chair of the police services board.

I think that’s where the accountability is, that’s where the decision-making is, and we should respect that decision.

Pension plans

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Associate Minister of Finance. I know the associate minister has been working hard to build Ontario’s new retirement pension plan. This is something that the people of Ontario need. The reality is that a significant number of Ontarians don’t have an adequate workplace pension plan or are not saving enough for retirement. After a lifetime of hard work, Ontarians deserve better.

A number of Halton residents say that they are pleased with our government taking steps to help Ontarians be financially secure when they retire. Younger families in my riding are concerned about their retirement security and that of their kids and grandkids. The Canada Pension Plan is just not enough.

The minister and our government have committed to engaging with Ontarians on the ORPP. I know the minister has been criss-crossing the province to speak with Ontarians about our plan to enhance retirement security. Can the minister please inform this House about what she’s hearing from Ontarians about the ORPP?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Halton for the question. The member is right: The Premier has stressed the importance of consulting on the ORPP in my mandate letter. It has been informative to travel the province to meet with people to discuss the ORPP and hear their feedback. From Thunder Bay to Ottawa, Windsor to Peterborough, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with representatives from business, labour, associations and organizations, families and individuals.

There was a diversity of opinions, but the common thread throughout these conversations was that people are concerned about their retirement security. People are concerned that they have not saved enough or that they might outlive their savings. Several people also worry that they may never be able to retire.

Mr. Speaker, that is very troubling to our government. We believe that after a lifetime of working and contributing to the economy, Ontarians deserve a secure retirement. That’s why we’re moving forward with the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, again, to the minister for her hard work and for that answer. I’m pleased to hear that the minister has had the opportunity to get some solid input from many Ontarians on this very important initiative. I know that Halton residents will appreciate the government’s efforts to actively engage Ontario residents on this vital matter.

Mr. Speaker, again, through you to the Associate Minister of Finance: Our government has been actively advocating that the federal government needs to make a modest enhancement to CPP, without success. As we move forward with the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, some of my constituents have asked whether we are continuing to press for a CPP enhancement. Many say this would be the best way to ensure a secure retirement. Can the minister please inform the House about whether our government is still pursuing an enhancement to CPP?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, again, to the hard-working member from Halton for this important question.

Our preferred option to address retirement security remains CPP enhancement. The Premier and Minister of Finance have been advocating for CPP enhancement since 2010. Over a year ago, having extensive discussions with the provinces and territories, there was agreement to continue moving forward with discussions on CPP enhancement. Unfortunately, the federal government unilaterally shut down any and all further discussions on this issue.

We know that Ontarians expect their government to take leadership to help us secure their retirement. We also know that we cannot wait for another government to take action on this important issue. That is why we’re moving forward with a made-in-Ontario solution with the ORPP so that we can strengthen retirement security for Ontarians.

As a participant, a small business owner in Markham, said, “When we share a little, we gain a lot.”

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, last week’s very disturbing report released by the Chief Electoral Officer on apparent contraventions of the Election Act is, in his own words, “unprecedented.” As AG, you have a unique responsibility to advise cabinet on legal matters. Have you advised the Premier that, according to the Election Act, a specific job offer is, in fact, not required for an apparent contravention to have occurred?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to repeat again, the Chief Electoral Officer is an independent officer—we know that—of the Legislative Assembly. As I mentioned previously on numerous occasions, this process exclusively involved non-partisan officials within the Ministry of the Attorney General. The system is already designed—and I think the Chief Electoral Officer stipulated that on page 4 of his report—so that only non-partisan officials handle any complaints. The third party and the opposition know that. If they want to have more information, they can reach out to the Chief Electoral Officer and he will explain the process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: And on page 10 of the report, it very specifically says, “an apparent contravention could be established if a candidate is offered a range of options rather than a specific role in a specific office.” Sound familiar, Premier?

Minister, what assurances can you give the public that this investigation will be dealt with quickly, before memories fail and evidence is deleted?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order, please—a second time.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Control, Alt, Delete.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing, please come to order—a second time.

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m going to repeat it again: The system is already designed so that only non-partisan officials handle this complaint. As I said last week, the matter has been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada by the ministry. The member should know the process, because the Chief Electoral Officer said in his report that his office briefed the opposition about the independent process. I guess that these questions should not be asked if they have read the report.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier or her staff ever offered jobs or appointments in order to keep anyone else from running?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve answered this question many times in reference to the Sudbury situation. There was no offer made for any action. We’ve been very clear about that. It hasn’t been done in the Sudbury situation, and it hasn’t been done elsewhere.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier seems to think that everyone is going around and doing these types of activities and that this is very commonplace. It may be standard in her party; it’s certainly not standard in ours.

Pat Sorbara called Andrew Olivier and she said this to Andrew—

Interjections.

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

Please put your question.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you. Pat Sorbara said this to Andrew: “You’re like the third person I’ve even heard her ask this of.... That’s why she said, ‘I hope we’re standing ... together, and we need to find the longer-term ... role here, not in Glenn’s shadow, but in ... your own voice.’”

Because, as she continued to say, “If there were other things that” Olivier was “particularly interested in” that are within the Premier’s realm to make Olivier part of, then “she is more than prepared to do that.”

Who are the other two people that the Premier has made a call to, and what kind of offers did she make to them that were within her realm?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really don’t know where this question is going. I’ve been very clear that the conversations with our past candidate were about suggestions of ways that he might want to stay involved.

There are many ways to be involved; there are many options. That was the conversation that I had had with Andrew Olivier. That’s the conversation that Pat Sorbara had with him.

I know that those are conversations that have been had by other parties. I know that Jonah Schein and Paul Ferreira both had ways of staying involved in the party. Of course it was after an election; I understand it was after an election.

But the fact is, people stay involved in parties. That was the conversation that I had with Andrew Olivier, and that’s the conversation that Pat Sorbara had with him.

Employment practices

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre du Travail, the Honourable Kevin Flynn, and it concerns the global economic marketplace.

Speaker, as you’ll appreciate, the economy of Ontario, in order to be globally competitive, must always deal with the evolving challenges and the constant changes that are before us.

In today’s workplace, for example, many people are often not keeping the traditional 9-to-5 business day and taking weekends off. In my own riding of Etobicoke North, I hear stories about families who are, for example, affected by a number of these different changes that affect their life, their personal economy, their home situation and, of course, their workplace.

From globalization to the aging workforce, people in this province want to know that we as a government, in our capacity as stewards of the economy, are in fact planning for what’s in store.

My question is this: Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to ensure that Ontario’s labour laws adapt to the ever-changing marketplace?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the honourable member from Etobicoke North for what I think is a very insightful question.

As the member will know, and as all members of the House will know, all the members of cabinet received public mandate letters. In my mandate letter, I was asked to undertake a review of Ontario’s changing workplace, to ensure that the labour laws and the employment standards we have actually meet the needs of our modern economy.

Starting very shortly, in March, public consultations are going to begin. They’re going to look at the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act, and we want to know how they could be amended in order to meet the challenges of the changing workplace.

We’ll be looking at the increase of non-standard working relationships, the rise in prominence of the service sector, and the impact of new technology. These special advisers that I’ve appointed will report back with recommendations within the next 18 months.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I appreciate the steps, initiatives and programs the government is undertaking to tackle this particular issue, especially as we go forward in this challenging global marketplace.

Minister, you mentioned that the review will be undertaken by a number of advisers and an expert panel who will, I believe, be charged with reporting back to the House in 18 months. I presume that their recommendations will help inform what changes may be required to employment standards, labour relations and a number of other aspects in the labour domain.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can you please tell this House who the advisers will be and a little bit about their vision for how they’ll guide this important review of Ontario’s changing marketplace?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for the supplementary.

I’m really pleased with the choice we’ve made here. We’ve appointed two special advisers: Michael Mitchell and the Honourable John C. Murray. They’re going to lead and co-ordinate these upcoming public consultations and the review itself.

These people have a depth of relevant legal knowledge and experience that I think is unmatched in the province of Ontario. Michael Mitchell is a former senior partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell. His 37 years in practice have given him a wealth of experience in the field; he’s even co-authored a textbook on the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Honourable John C. Murray has been practising law since 1969. Appointed to the bench of the Superior Court in 2004, he has provided legal advice to numerous public institutions, universities and hospitals. He’s a pioneer of alternative dispute resolution. He’s well-prepared to face the challenge of this review.

We should be especially proud of the opportunity to undertake this review with these two fine individuals. I would urge all members of the House to both become involved themselves and to urge their constituents to get involved as well.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier: Premier, there’s a sad irony in what has transpired since last Thursday in question period. You informed the House last Thursday, as we all learned about the contraventions of the Election Act by your staff, that you would take time to consider and deliberate about the report before you responded.

I was hoping for honesty, a quality that you preach constantly. But as I left, astonished, on Friday, instead of speaking honestly, you impugned and maligned the reputation of every member in this House with an unwarranted attack.

Premier, it’s telling that no one trusts you. Even your candidates bring tape recorders to their meetings with you because they all know you say one thing and you do another. Why should anyone trust you about anything, especially after what has taken place in Sudbury and your involvement?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I really do challenge the premise of the question. But I want to just say to the member opposite that I spoke in the Legislature on Thursday—that’s exactly right. I answered questions. And I got a lot of advice and I thought long and hard about what I was going to say on Friday. At 4 o’clock in the morning I got up and actually wrote the statement that I made on Friday, because I wanted the people of Ontario to know exactly where I was coming from on this, why I was doing what I was doing, why I had done what I had done.

And I did include in my statement the fact that there have been actions taken by other parties, like members coming across the floor to ask for appointments in exchange for stepping down from their seats. I made that point, Mr. Speaker, because I needed the people of Ontario to understand that we said no. We said we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to operate like that, even though that is what has been done before. That’s why we’re—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Premier, you continue to malign and impugn members in this House. If that’s a fact, come forward, come clean: Tell us who they are.

Premier, you challenged the premise of my question. I’m challenging your integrity. You have stood in this House and have said one thing after another, and they’ve all borne out to be false, each and every time. With each falsehood, we have another OPP investigation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m drawing the line on that. Withdraw, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’m listening carefully.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Premier, there are four investigations now. Every time you say one thing, you do another. There’s clear, clear evidence of your involvement here, and you need to come clean with the people of Ontario. You can’t continue to impugn the members in this House in defense of your actions—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s just be clear about what the Chief Electoral Officer said. Once again, the Chief Electoral Officer stated, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” That’s the fact. We’re dealing with allegations, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say to the member opposite: Unlike the way he might do business, I was making a point in my statement on Friday. I wasn’t creating a situation where individuals’ names were going to be dragged through the mud. That’s not what I was doing. I was making a point.

The fact is that this is something that has happened in the past and it has happened in the recent past. It’s not about going after an individual. It really is not what it was about. I was trying to put in context the fact that we are doing things differently. We said no in those situations when in the past the answer has been yes.

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Speaker, the Premier is protecting Pat Sorbara because the Premier insists Mrs. Sorbara was offering what the OPP is calling “bribes” on the Liberal clock instead of on the government clock. It’s the government’s job to make laws, not to break them. Moonlighting in another position doesn’t give you an excuse to start violating fundamental principles. A bribe is a bribe no matter whose time card you’re punching. It’s not a “What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas” type of a situation.

Speaker, does the Premier really think that it is okay for senior staff to be on the job while they are under criminal investigation? Because, frankly, Ontarians don’t.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This story is not that complicated. The story is that there was a seat vacated in Sudbury five months after the election. An NDP MP decided that he wanted to run for the Ontario Liberal Party in Sudbury. He had conversations with the Premier. The Premier was enormously impressed, as well she should be, and made the determination that Glenn Thibeault would be our candidate in the upcoming by-election. After that decision had been made, there were conversations with the past candidate about how to keep him involved.

But let’s just talk about who Glenn Thibeault is and why the Premier would choose to actually appoint him as our candidate to make sure that he would come to Queen’s Park and represent. He has fought tirelessly for the most vulnerable people in Sudbury: people with disabilities, people with autism. He’s worked with the Big Brothers Big Sisters—

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

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: My question is about Pat Sorbara, who offered Andrew Olivier “a full-time or a part-time job at a constituency office” or “appointments to boards or commissions.” It doesn’t matter what hat Mrs. Sorbara was working with—it was wrong. It is spelled out in the Criminal Code and in the Election Act. It is wrong.

But the Premier says, “The role that Pat Sorbara plays as a director of campaigns is quite separate from her role as deputy chief of staff.” Why is the Premier okay with Pat Sorbara offering what the OPP is calling a bribe with her campaign director hat on, if she thinks it is wrong to offer bribes with her chief of staff hat on?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’ve known the Premier since we were both elected back in 2003. She is a woman of enormous integrity. She is a woman who is thoughtful, who is principled, who will sometimes do the difficult thing when it’s the right thing.

In this case, she has chosen a difficult path. The easy path would be to just throw people under the bus. She has chosen not to do that. She has chosen to actually let the investigation unfold. She has chosen to co-operate fully with any investigation. She has chosen the right, the principled, the thoughtful path, and I have even more respect for her now than I had before because she has chosen to do the difficult, but right, thing, and has rejected the easy path.

Aboriginal economic development

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and, may I add, a fine MPP.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to invest in people, to invest in infrastructure and to support an innovative business climate in Ontario. Despite the government’s efforts to support economic development through mainstream programs and services, aboriginal people continue to face significant economic disadvantages.

Our province’s diversity is one of its greatest aspects, and my riding of Davenport is truly emblematic of Ontario’s rich cultural diversity. As a society largely made up of immigrants, it is imperative that we recognize the contributions of Ontario’s First Nations peoples to our province’s diversity.

We all recognize that a strong and vibrant aboriginal community strengthens Ontario culturally, socially and economically. Speaker, through you to the minister: While we are making progress in many areas, can the minister inform the House about some initiatives this government has undertaken to better cater to the needs of aboriginal communities and organizations across the province?

Hon. David Zimmer: The member is correct: Mainstream programs often fall short in delivering the necessary programs to our most vulnerable populations.

We have been active on many fronts, creating many opportunities for both the private sector and communities to participate in a meaningful way and to help the Ontario economy. Just last week, we announced the continuation of our New Relationship Fund. The fund is designed to support aboriginal communities and organizations’ participation in meaningful consultation and engagement with government and the private sector.

Ontario has invested $97 million in the New Relationship Fund between 2008 and 2014. We are glad that the aboriginal communities are benefiting from this program in their relationship with the rest of Ontario and the development of their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Minister, thank you for informing this House on the New Relationship Fund. It is wonderful news. This is a great investment in helping people, communities and businesses, and in helping to create a more robust business environment.

However, the fact remains that the unemployment rate for First Nation people is approximately three times the Ontario average on-reserve and twice the Ontario average off-reserve. We know that a constructive, co-operative relationship with aboriginal peoples in Ontario leads to improved opportunities and a better future, not only for aboriginal people but for all people living in Ontario.

Through you, Speaker: Will the minister expand further on just what is happening with this investment and how it is directly benefiting aboriginal communities in Ontario?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, we want to see the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people closed off, because when aboriginal people prosper, all of Ontario prospers.

The fund was originally announced as a four-year commitment in 2008, but it has been so successful that we will continue to invest in the fund on an ongoing basis.

During the 2014-15 year, aboriginal communities and organizations pursued a number of projects through enhanced program funding. With a $14.5-million investment this year, the ministry has funded over 103 core consultation projects, representing 154 communities; and 30 enhanced consultation projects, representing some 51 aboriginal communities and organizations. These projects will continue to show that aboriginal communities are pursuing innovative solutions that ensure their future prosperity, and I commend that; we should all commend that.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Premier. It’s clear that your party is willing to rule a verdict of innocence without trial. You continually tell the people of Ontario that you and your staff did nothing wrong, as if being elected Premier made you both judge and jury for your unscrupulous actions.

After several complaints from the public, the Greater Sudbury police board decided in a closed-door meeting that Gerry Lougheed Jr. would continue as chair, despite the investigation.

Premier, I was listening to this morning’s opening prayer; it referenced honesty and integrity. This investigation is not going to disappear. Why won’t you ask this man to step aside while under investigation?

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I’ve mentioned and stated on numerous occasions, police services boards are responsible for the provision of adequate and effective policing within their municipalities. Among their duties, police services boards generally determine objectives and priorities with respect to police services in their jurisdictions and establish policies for the effective management of police services.

Under the Police Services Act, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has no jurisdiction or power to remove a member from a police services board. All police services board members, however, are appointed by the province or a municipal council and are subject to a code of conduct that is enshrined under the Police Services Act through a regulation. I understand, as the member mentioned, that the board considered this matter itself and have decided to elect Mr. Lougheed as chair of the board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Again, back to the Premier: What does your government have against accountability? You’ve questioned the integrity of the Auditor General, you have brushed off the report from the Chief Electoral Officer, and it doesn’t seem to concern you that there are four ongoing OPP investigations into your government’s unethical political practice. These are all independent accountability officers who are saying that you and your government have done wrong. More reports are on their way.

Premier, everyone is telling you that you have done wrong, so when will you do the right thing and have Mr. Lougheed step aside?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The fair and most accountable thing to do would be to let an independent body which is responsible for review of these matters conduct its business, as opposed to raising these issues in the House and asking for some sort of political interference, which the opposition is doing.

As I mentioned, there is a code of conduct which is in force by regulation. It’s regulation 421/97, just for the member’s reference if he wants to check it. It’s up to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission—the OCPC—to consider whether the code of conduct is being complied with or not. That’s an independent body, an arm’s-length body, and it’s up to them to see whether the code of conduct is enforced. I will leave that work up to the OCPC, as opposed to the political interference that is being sought by the members opposite.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. One of the Premier’s top aides is under criminal investigation, and my constituents think that’s pretty serious. So do the OPP, Elections Ontario and federal crown prosecutors. Where I come from, when someone is accused of something and they’re in a public position—like one of the most powerful non-elected positions in this province—when they’re under investigation, where I come from, they step down until the investigation is over.

What does it take for the Premier of this province to do what would actually be normal practice in most places and have that person step down until the investigation is over?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, let’s go back to what’s actually happening here. What’s happening is that the Chief Electoral Officer has called the allegations against two people baseless: the Premier and Mr. Thibeault. Those allegations have been considered baseless.

There are two other investigations going on, and we are fully co-operating with these investigations. I think that when an allegation is made, that does not make it true. Anyone listening today would think that there had already been a conviction, for heaven’s sake. There is an investigation under way. We’re fully co-operating with the investigation. The Premier has said that if, in fact, a charge is laid, then that changes the story. But I think that what’s important is that there is an investigation under way, and we are completely co-operating with that investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: The Premier has refused to accept any responsibility for her actions in this matter. She is protecting Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed from this scandal. The Premier apparently doesn’t see any problems with Andrew Olivier being offered a job to get out of the way, even though the law is clear.

But for my constituents, the biggest issue is, we need to be held to a higher standard. The people who are involved in this investigation need to step back so that the investigation appears to be open and transparent, the words we hear all the time from your government.

Again, why don’t you take normal practice and force these people to step aside until the investigation is complete?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier has received lots of advice on this. I think both opposition parties have been very generous in their advice.

That advice has been heard. You heard from the Premier today that she did take that advice seriously. Then she really thought through the issues here. She took a thoughtful, principled, ethical approach. She made the determination that when allegations are baseless, as she knows them to be, she will let that investigation unfold. But she will not force the resignation of someone when the allegations against that person are baseless.

I actually think our Premier has demonstrated a new and different and better way—not an easier way, but a better way—of dealing with opposition allegations.

Immigrants

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Minister, both Ontario’s culture and its economy rely greatly on our immigrant population. Each year we welcome many highly skilled newcomers, who bring with them a wealth of knowledge and abilities that do contribute to our province. Without immigration, Ontario’s working-age population will begin to decline.

There are many talented newcomers in my riding of Kitchener Centre who do contribute greatly to our community, and we want to make certain that they continue to be welcomed in our province and meet with opportunities.

Speaker, could the minister please tell us what actions the government is taking to ensure that Ontario continues to have a healthy immigrant population?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. I want to thank the honourable member from Kitchener Centre for asking.

As an immigrant myself, just like many of my colleagues here today, I know the struggles that many newcomers face.

Ontario was built by immigrants. Our government is committed to making sure that they continue to find success in our great province. This is why we recently re-introduced Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act. If passed, it would make Ontario the second province in the country, after Quebec, to have its own immigrant legislation. Bill 49 will put in place the tools and authority needed to welcome immigrants who will help Ontario meets its future labour and market needs.

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington on a point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’d like to draw your attention to standing orders 23(

h) and (i). The Premier’s comments today in this House in response to my question, as well as her comments last Friday, are tantamount—they are making allegations against another member and imputing false or unavowed motives to another member and, I would say, to all members.

I would like you to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I was listening carefully all the time. I did not hear that. I thank the member for his interjection.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on a point of order.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you for the indulgence. I’d love to introduce today page captain Dhairya Bhatt and his family: mother Mamta, father Amish, grandmother Bina and grandfather Nilesh.

I want them all to feel welcomed in the House today. Thank you so much for being here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Leo Jordan

Mr. Randy Hillier: I was sorry to hear of the recent passing of a great community leader: William Leo Jordan.

On Saturday, I was joined by my colleagues Steve Clark, John Yakabuski, Jack MacLaren and Ted Arnott in Smiths Falls to commemorate the life of Leo Jordan, along with Leo’s family and many friends.

Leo was a former reeve of Montague township in my riding. He served on Lanark county council and also served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for almost a decade.

Leo was first elected in 1990 as MPP for Lanark–Renfrew and served in opposition as critic for a number of important portfolios, including energy, which drew off of his 39 years of experience at Ontario Hydro.

After securing his seat for the second time by more than 10,000 votes, Leo served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism in the Mike Harris government.

I first met Leo when I became an advocate for property rights and smaller government and had the pleasure of his ongoing support.

Leo will be sadly missed by his family, as well as the many people and friends whose lives he touched and helped over his long career.

Heritage conservation

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, as you know, this is Black History Month, and I want to tell about something we’re celebrating in the town of Tecumseh and indeed in the entire region of Windsor and Essex county.

This is a story about our rich heritage, the success of the Underground Railroad, and the brave black men who served the crown and fought in the Rebellions of 1837. It’s also a story about two dedicated descendants of these African Canadian pioneers: Elise Harding-Davis and Glen Cook.

During slavery, in the United States, as property, blacks had no say or control over where or even if bodies were interred. So when refugee slaves came to Ontario, they established settlements, built churches and, for the first time, these pioneers bought land for their own graveyards. That’s the background of this story, Speaker.

I live just off Banwell Road. Just up the road and over the tracks you’ll find a small five-acre cemetery. All that remains are five headstones, but they tell a story that needs to be told. One stone is dated 1865. Other markers are dated 1870, 1877, and, for James Ross, 1908. James Ross was murdered for his pocket change. His murderer was the last man hanged in Sandwich.

There are others buried there beneath sunken markers on overgrown plots and in dense woodlots.

Elise Harding-Davis and Glen Cook have documented their history, and I’m proud to say that, because of their work, the Ontario Heritage Trust, with help from the town of Tecumseh, will erect a provincial heritage plaque there later this year.

So, Speaker, through you, a salute from the Ontario Legislature to Elise and Glen for their dedication to this very important project and for helping us all understand and celebrate our shared heritage.

Community Recognition Awards

Mr. Yvan Baker: In January, I had the privilege of presenting the 2014 Community Recognition Awards, recognizing the positive difference being made by individuals and groups in Etobicoke Centre. The awards were presented at my New Year’s levee and were awarded to people living, working or volunteering in Etobicoke Centre who make a real difference in the lives of people in our community.

I’d like to take this moment to recognize the recipients of this year’s awards in this House. For outstanding volunteer service to the community: Brian Brennand, Oksana Cherchyk, Jim Fielding, Bruce Gleeson, Barbara Hayworth, Odile Sahl, Ted Scott, Florence Thiffault, John Varley, Bill Wilson and Mary Wilson.

For outstanding volunteer service to seniors: Dr. Ronald Groshaw, Sharon Bradbury, George Alexandris, AnQi Chang, Elizabeth Ditchev, Gayasha Perera, Mary Klamas, Helen Kerekes, Lydia Lelyk and a group of volunteers from Etobicoke Services for Seniors congregate dining.

For outstanding volunteer service to the community by youth: Matthew Barrett, Johnathan McAvoy, Kathy Huang, Victoria Lee and Kirby Wong.

For outstanding service by professional staff, employees or employers: Daniel Bogue, Mary Green, Luke Lynch, Rose Wang, Sandy Simmons and Wendy Samuel.

The recipients recognized come from a range of ages and backgrounds and contribute in a range of ways, from caring for seniors to engaging youth to volunteering in their parish. They make a difference every single day.

I’m honoured to represent Etobicoke Centre and to have the opportunity through these awards to recognize those who are making a difference in our community.

Thank you to all the recipients for what you do and to all those in Etobicoke Centre who work to make Etobicoke Centre and Ontario better every single day.

Off-road vehicles

Mr. Michael Harris: This week we’re seeing work by both opposition parties to update regulation 316/03 under the Highway Traffic Act that allows utility task vehicle, or UTV, owners the same rights to drive on designated roads and trails as ATV owners, something the government continues to stall on despite all-party support.

In the wake of more foot-dragging, we’ve seen the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, and later this week my caucus colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka, bring forth private members’ bills to step in where government has stalled.

It was over a year ago—November 7, 2013, to be exact—that the government member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell put forth a motion to make rules fair for off-road vehicle drivers across the board. We continue to wait for that playing field to be levelled, as promised, through regulation.

Since the motion’s passing, I’ve written the minister on numerous occasions asking for the regulatory update that would help Ontario businesses, farmers, agri-businesses and recreational clubs like golf courses, campgrounds and riding groups to make better use of their off-road vehicles.

Down in my neck of the woods, in New Hamburg, Ontario Drive and Gear has been manufacturing the Argo since the 1960s, a vehicle that has a world-renowned reputation for its versatility and capability in traversing difficult terrain. Updating regulations to reflect what is available to safely ride between trails and properties on rural highways will generate greater demand for these Ontario products and, in turn, help create well-paying jobs.

Speaker, it has already been a decade too long. It’s time to kick-start this needed change and allow for off-road vehicle ownership to drive on designated roads, highways and trails, as other all-terrain vehicles do.

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: I rise today to talk about the recent by-election in my city, in Sudbury, and to talk about what could have been. February 5 could have been a day of pride for the people of Sudbury. We could have sent Ontario’s first severely disabled person or even the first aboriginal woman to the Legislature. You see, Speaker, everyone who cares about Sudbury knows that we’ve had an image problem in the past. Think about the moonscape. Well, left to ourselves, we could have made history, for all the right reasons.

Electing the very first quadriplegic person or First Nations person could have united all of us together and allowed us to stand proud and say, “Sudbury did this. We did this.”

The media from all over could have come to our city to see how progressive, caring and inclusive Sudbury really is. We could have showcased the Northern Lights Festival Boréal, the longest-running folk festival—and not only is it bilingual, it is a multicultural event; or TG Innerselves, which works with transgender people; or a visit to the Samaritan Centre to see the Corner Clinic, which is dedicated to caring for the homeless people of Sudbury.

This summer the Parapan and Pan American athletes could have come and made the trip up north to celebrate one of their own and to see more of what a progressive, inclusive and caring community Sudbury is. This is the story that could have been. We all know what we got instead.

Elijah Marsh

Mr. Mike Colle: I rise today with great sadness to relay the story about the tragic death of Elijah Marsh. As you know, three-year-old Elijah was found frozen, with no vital signs, beside a house in my riding last Thursday.

Young Elijah is, to say the least, greatly, greatly missed by the whole community in Neptune, and by everybody across the country. In fact, I think Elijah’s tragic death has struck a chord around the world.

I would like to thank the men and women at 32 division; Sam Fernandes, the division superintendent who led the search; and the volunteers who came from across the GTA to search for Elijah. I’d like to also thank all the members of the community who are standing with the family right now, getting them through this incredible grief that they are having to endure.

Out of this horrible death—it’s just remarkable the amount of good that this tragedy has elicited from people. When I was there the other day, there was a group of students from Dante high school who stopped and said the Our Father beside a little makeshift vigil where Elijah—it was marked of his passing.

So we say to Elijah’s family and the greater community at Baycrest and Neptune: Rest in peace, Elijah. Out of your tragic death, you’ve inspired us all to come together and remark on what is important in this life, and that is taking care of our children.

Winter road maintenance

Mr. Norm Miller: I rise in this House today to recognize the local efforts to raise awareness on the state of the maintenance of winter roads across Parry Sound–Muskoka. For the past two winter seasons, the conditions have been particularly challenging.

Last week, on the day that the Legislature resumed, I tabled in this House a petition containing 2,500 signatures. Today, I have added 250 signatures to that record, and individual support continues to pour in.

These individuals are all calling for positive change that will improve the delivery of winter road maintenance and make our roads safer. The petition specifically calls for a return to a delivery model that allows Ministry of Transportation staff to be able to direct the contractor on deployment of vehicles as conditions dictate.

Taking into account the amount of snowfall and cold temperatures experienced the past two winter seasons, I believe that the experience under the previous model, compared with the current model, illustrates the need for change.

I’m pleased to have the support of many municipalities across Parry Sound–Muskoka. I hope that the government and the Minister of Transportation will listen to municipal delegations at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association/Ontario Good Roads Association conference going on this week and make improvements to winter road maintenance.

Ice yachting championships

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to tell you about an incredible sporting event that was recently held in my riding of Kingston and the Islands: the international ice yachting DN class world cup championships. This event is held annually, alternating between Europe and North America.

Naturally, the decision on locality is always a last-minute one, based on weather and ice conditions—challenging when competitors must ship their boats internationally. Imagine about 100 competitors from 15 countries or more, including Poland, Sweden, Finland and France, poised with all their equipment to descend at short notice on the right place.

With eight inches of glass-like ice and clear skies, Lake Ontario was the right place to be, and, frankly, the only place to be sailing on Lake Ontario is Kingston, with its reputation of the best sailing in the world.

Precision team spirit was demonstrated by the Kingston Yacht Club, Queen’s students, the Kingston Economic Development Corp. and many volunteers. State-of-the-art sport and spirit with the best possible human infrastructure—that, Mr. Speaker, is a typical Kingston classic.

Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Family skating event

Ms. Daiene Vernile: This past Family Day, I held a free public skate event in our riding of Kitchener Centre at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium’s Kiwanis rink, and I know that many of my fellow MPPs did the same. Much to my delight, I was absolutely overwhelmed by the response. We had hundreds of constituents come out to have some fun with us.

Ironically, the event gave us all an opportunity to escape the frigid cold outside and warm up inside an arena where we keep ice. The crowd was very diverse. Some were experienced skaters

whereas others were out there for the very first time. The event was also a great opportunity for new Canadians to get involved in the community and, more importantly, to help them to adapt to Canadian culture. One such individual was named Padha; she’s from Burma. She was lacing up her skates for the very first time as she took

part in our communal gathering on the ice.

Having grown up in a family that immigrated to Canada from Italy, I can appreciate the value of any experience that helps immigrants become more accustomed to Canadian culture and climate. The event gave our constituents a chance to not only have some fun and get some exercise, but it provided them with a chance to network and connect with others, which is really invaluable to help immigrants integrate into our culture here in Canada.

I want to extend my gratitude to everyone who made the effort to join us, and I’m so pleased at the level of community building that I witnessed. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their comments.

Introduction of Bills

Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour porter un toast à l’Ontario

Mr. Smith moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi 67, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les alcools.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is itthe pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Todd Smith: The Raise a Glass to Ontario Act, 2015, seeks to change the system for the retail, sale and transportation of alcohol in line with several recommendations made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. It also seeks to make amendments that will allow for a new warehousing regulatory regime that will provide better access to market and stronger growth potential for many products that are manufactured right here in Ontario.

Municipal Elections Amendment Act (Voting Hours Extension), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales (prolongation des heures de scrutin)

Mr. Berardinetti moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 to keep voting places open until 9 p.m. / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales pour que les bureaux de vote restent ouverts jusqu’à 21 h.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: This bill amends the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, to extend the hours when voting places are open for votes, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Motions

Private members’ public business

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without consent. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. Bradley.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 98, the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members’ public business: Mr. Smith and Ms. Elliott exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Smith assumes ballot item number 30 and Ms. Elliott assumes ballot item number 42, and that notice for ballot item numbers 31, 34, 35 and 36 be waived.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley moves that, notwithstanding standing order 98, the following changes be made to the public ballot list for private members’ public business: Mr. Smith and Ms. Elliott exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Smith assumes ballot item number 30 and Ms. Elliott assumes ballot item number 42, and that notice for ballot items 31, 34, 35 and 36 be waived.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Winter road maintenance

Mr. Norm Miller: I’ve received more petitions to do with improved winter road maintenance, and the petition reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the area maintenance contract system has failed Ontario drivers the past two winters;

“Whereas unsafe conditions led to the maintenance contractor being fined in the winter of 2013-14, as well as leading to a special investigation by the provincial Auditor General;

“Whereas the managed outsourcing system for winter roads maintenance, where the private contractor is responsible for maintenance, but MTO patrols the region and directs the contractor on the deployment of vehicles, sand and salt, has a proven track record for removing snow and ensuring that Ontario’s highways are safe for travellers;

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

“That the Ontario Ministry of Transportation take immediate action to improve the maintenance of winter roads based on the positive benefits of the previous delivery model, where MTO plays more of a role in directing the private contractor.”

I support and have signed this petition.

First responders

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have here a petition submitted from across Ontario, but specifically I see names here from Oshawa and from Durham, and I’m pleased to read it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas emergency response workers (paramedics, police officers, and firefighters) confront traumatic events on a nearly daily basis to provide safety to the public; and

“Whereas many emergency response workers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their work; and

“Whereas Bill 2 ‘An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder’ sets out that if an emergency response worker suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, the disorder is presumed to be an occupational disease that occurred due to their employment as an emergency response worker, unless the contrary is shown;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to unanimously endorse and quickly pass Bill 2 ‘An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder’.”

I am pleased to affix my name to this and to send it with page Julie.

Credit unions

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario support our 1.3 million members across Ontario through loans to small businesses to start up, grow and create jobs, help families to buy homes and assist their communities with charitable investments and volunteering; and

“Whereas Credit Unions of Ontario want a level playing field so they can provide the same service to our members as other financial institutions and promote economic growth without relying on taxpayers’ resources;

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

“Support the strength and growth of credit unions to support the strength and growth of Ontario’s economy and create jobs in three ways:

“—maintain current credit union provincial tax rates;

“—show confidence in Ontario credit unions by increasing credit union-funded deposit insurance limits to a minimum of $250,000;

“—allow credit unions to diversify by allowing Ontario credit unions to own 100% of subsidiaries.”

I agree with the petition, affix my name and give it to page Dhairya to bring forward.

Health care

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s lack of priority funding is causing the closure of the South Bruce Grey Health Centre restorative care Chesley site as of May 1st, 2015; and

“Whereas in three years, the 10 beds dedicated to this program have seen over 300 patients utilize the program and at this time there is a waiting list for this successful program; and

“Whereas currently over 83% of patients are discharged from the restorative care program to home after a two- to eight-week program which has prepared them to confidently return home, recognizing this program increases their quality of life through the regaining of strength, balance and independence; and

“Whereas the closure of this program will deprive seniors and other eligible clients from the many health and mobility benefits that the restorative care program offers; and

“Whereas the alternative to the restorative care program will see patients staying in active medical beds longer, while they wait for long-term care; and

“Whereas the return of investment on the restorative care program far exceeds conventional approaches when considering the value of quality of life in the patients’ own home as compared to a long-term-care facility; and

“Whereas it is our understanding that the CCAC has cut back its services enabling patients to remain confidently in their home;

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

“That the South Bruce Grey Health Centre restorative care Chesley site be recognized for its success; and for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to showcase this program as a model to be followed across the province; and

“That the closing of the South Bruce Grey Health Centre restorative care Chesley site on May 1st, 2015, not proceed and the provincial government support this health care model with base funding as an investment in the health and welfare of patients so they can confidently remain in their home.”

I support this, will affix my signature and send it with page Hannah.

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

“Whereas there are an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 unpaid internships in Canada each year; and

“Whereas youth unemployment in Ontario is over 15%; and

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Labour is not adequately enforcing the laws on unpaid internships;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take the following actions:

“

(1) Proactively enforce the law on unpaid internships;

“

(2) Engage in an educational campaign to inform students, youth, employers, educational institutions and the general public of the laws surrounding unpaid internships; and

“

(3) Undertake a comprehensive review of the current laws surrounding unpaid internships in Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it, and give it to page Arlyne to take to the table.

Distracted driving

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to present a petition from my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government is committed to ensuring the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians on Ontario’s roads and making the province North America’s most cycling friendly jurisdiction; and

“Whereas, on average, one person is killed on Ontario’s roads every 18 hours, and one person is injured every 8.1 minutes; and

“Whereas drivers who use cellphones while driving are four times more likely to be in a crash than non-distracted drivers; and

“Whereas evidence has shown that Ontario’s impaired driving laws need to be strengthened to apply sanctions for driving under the influence of alcohol to those impaired by drugs;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass and enact, as soon as possible, Bill 31, the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act, 2014.”

I fully support the petition, Mr. Speaker, and will give my petition to page Ali.

Off-road vehicles

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank the good people of Lombardy for supporting Norm Miller’s Bill 58. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas it has been over a decade since regulation 316/03 of the Highway Traffic Act has been updated to recognize the new classes of off-road vehicles and a motion to do so passed on November 7, 2013, with unanimous support of the provincial Legislature;

“Whereas owners of two-up ATVs and side-by-side UTVs deserve clarity in knowing which roadways and trails are legal for use of these off-road vehicles; and

“Whereas owners should be able to legally use their vehicles to access woodlots, trails and hunting and fishing destinations;

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

“That private member’s Bill 58, which seeks to update the Highway Traffic Act to include new classes of all-terrain and utility task vehicles, receive swift passage through the Legislature.”

I’m pleased to affix my signature in support of this petition, and I’ll send it to the table with page Muntder.

Hospital parking fees

Miss Monique Taylor: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

“Whereas all individuals should have equal access to health care services regardless of their ability to pay; and

“Whereas patients requiring health care services often have to drive to a hospital to receive these services; and

“Whereas hospitals are increasingly using parking charges as an avenue for revenue generation thereby impacting some patients’ access based on their ability to pay; and

“Whereas the Liberal Party promised during the 2014 election campaign to cap hospital parking fees;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the government of Ontario follow through on their commitment to cap parking fees at Ontario’s hospitals at a level that ensures equitable access to health care.”

I couldn’t agree with this more. I’m going to give it to page Amber to bring to the Clerk.

Hispanic Heritage Month

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I have another petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario is home to over 400,000 first-, second- and third-generation Hispanic Canadians who originate from the 23 Hispanic countries around the world; and who have made significant contributions to the growth and vibrancy of the province of Ontario;

“Whereas October is a month of great significance for the Hispanic community worldwide; and allows an opportunity to remember, celebrate and educate future generations about the outstanding achievements of Hispanic peoples to our province’s social, economic and multicultural fabric;

“We, the undersigned, call upon members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support proclaiming October of each year as Hispanic Heritage Month and support Bill 28 by MPP Cristina Martins from the riding of Davenport.”

I agree with this, affix my signature, and give it to page Dhairya to bring forward.

Alzheimer’s disease

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are progressive, degenerative diseases of the brain that cause thinking, memory and physical functioning to become seriously impaired;

“Whereas there is no known cause or cure for this devastating illness; and

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias also take their toll on hundreds of thousands of families and care partners; and

“Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect more than 200,000 Ontarians today, with an annual total economic burden rising to $15.7 billion by 2020; and

“Whereas the cost related to the health care system is in the billions and only going to increase, at a time when our health care system is already facing enormous financial challenges; and

“Whereas there is work under way to address the need, but no coordinated or comprehensive approach to tackling the issues; and

“Whereas there is an urgent need to plan and raise awareness and understanding about Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for the sake of improving the quality of life of the people it touches;

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

“To approve the development of a comprehensive Ontario dementia plan that would include the development of strategies in primary health care, in health promotion and prevention of illness, in community development, in building community capacity and care partner engagement, in caregiver support and investments in research.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature, and send it with page Inaya.

Office of the Ombudsman

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are a growing number of reported cases of abuse, neglect, and substandard care for patients at our hospitals and long-term-care homes;

“Whereas there are more and more cases of hospital acquired infections;

“Whereas people with complaints have no independent body to listen to their concerns;

“Whereas Ontario is the only province in Canada—including the three territories—where our Ombudsman does not have independent oversight of hospitals and other front line care organizations;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition Legislative Assembly of Ontario to expand the Ombudsman’s mandate to include Ontario’s hospitals, long-term-care homes and other front line care organizations.”

I sign my signature to this petition and give it to page Muntder to deliver to the table.

Water fluoridation

Ms. Daiene Vernile: This is a petition regarding fluoride for all Ontario people who drink water.

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second-most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentrations; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

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

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario adopt the #1 recommendation made by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health in a 2012 report on oral health in Ontario, and amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I shall put my name to this and give this to page William, of the wonderful riding of Kitchener Centre.

Taxation

Mr. Toby Barrett: I have a petition I picked up quite early this morning at the Pioneer station in Hagersville. It’s titled “Say No to New Gas Taxes” and addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Kathleen Wynne’s carbon tax may not only apply to gasoline but also to diesel, heating oil, natural gas, propane;

“Whereas lower gas prices are the only break recently to Ontario’s middle class;

“Whereas Ontario already has gas taxes of 14.7 cents per litre plus 13% per litre HST and of course the federal excise tax of 10 cents a litre;

“We, the undersigned, emphatically say no to any new or additional gas taxes or carbon taxes imposed by the Wynne government.”

I fully agree and will affix my signature.

Orders of the Day

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 19, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Highway 407 East Act, 2012 and the Highway Traffic Act in respect of various matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2012 sur l’autoroute 407 Est et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne diverses questions et apportant une modification corrélative à la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When the House last debated Bill 31 at second reading, the member for Burlington had the floor. I shall now ask for further debate.

The member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you very much, Speaker. I welcome this debate in our Ontario Legislature on Bill 31. I think it’s an important bill. Transportation is important, and obviously road safety is important.

In the province of Ontario, we’ve been building roads to get from A to B. I do know that, well before the present province of Ontario was established, roads have certainly been under construction going back for the last several hundred years. I know that my great-grandfather and my grandfather were responsible for Mill Road. At that time, you were responsible for the road in front of your farm. In the spring, out would come the horses and a scraper, and they would attempt to grade that road. I always considered it our road. Our home farm is still on Mill Road.

We build roads. It obviously fosters social life and, most importantly, economic life, but also designed and built—construction—to be as safe as possible.

In in my riding over the last 12 years, there are several projects—provincial issues—that are long overdue. Particularly, I would like to briefly make reference, because we’re talking about transportation, to the bypasses and bridges of Haldimand county. There are several projects. Studies have been done—ongoing debate over the years. We need a link from the Hamilton airport bypass down to the Caledonia bypass.

The reason I say that is primarily for reasons of safety: Old Highway 6, south of Hamilton, coming down Upper James south towards Caledonia, is a four-lane highway with no barrier in between. There have been some horrendous accidents and deaths on that stretch of highway; right around Haldibrook Road on provincial Highway 6. We need the construction of that bypass. I have a Ministry of Transportation map in my office that shows the planned bypass as a series of dotted lines, again, pretty well coming down from Hamilton airport to the Caledonia bypass bridge over the Grand River.

We need a Hagersville truck bypass. Provincial Highway 6 comes right through town. It always has, ever since the inception of provincial Highway 6. With the heavy trucks, particularly steel, coming out of US Steel—again, the noise, the congestion and serious truck accidents that have occurred over the years, a number of them recently, right in downtown Hagersville. It’s timely: I just received a report, a master’s paper coming out of the University of Guelph authored by Wilrik Banda—he worked with me, the mayor and others on this report—outlining the complete story on the need for a Hagersville bypass.

A third major project that has been in abeyance for 12 years—in fact, it was about to begin back when I was a government member—is the Caledonia bridge over the Grand River, a 700-foot span, that was built back in 1927. It’s long overdue for replacement. Again, it’s limited: You can’t put trucks over that. I don’t think you can put a fire truck over that bridge. I’d be very worried about some of the heavy equipment going over a bridge like that. Again, it’s long overdue; certainly, over the last 12 years.

Another bridge is the Cayuga bridge. This is another very serious holdup. The Cayuga bridge was built in 1924. Again, it’s long overdue for replacement. Granted, these bridges seem to be holding up. There have been repairs. But these major bridges on major provincial highways, across the Grand River, 700 or 800 feet long, are long overdue to be replaced.

I’ve stood out on the Cayuga bridge. In fact, the late Bob Baigent was quite a champion of replacing this 1924 bridge. He asked me to take the time someday to walk out on that bridge, stand in the middle of the bridge, wait for a heavy load of steel, a load of coil, to come along, and see what it does to that bridge.

Again, this legislation, to its credit, is all about safety. I support much of what’s in this legislation. Again, the title of Bill 31, Making Ontario’s Roads Safer—we have to get on with this.

There’s a clear and present issue with the last project I mentioned, the Cayuga bridge. I stood in this House before Christmas and indicated that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation are doing their best to try to get around the delays with constructing the Cayuga bridge. The serious problem—and this is a justice issue; it’s a law-and-order issue—is that the bridge periodically gets occupied by native activists from Six Nations. They take over the bridge. This has happened several times now.

Construction workers, essentially, determine that discretion is better than valour, and they leave, oftentimes within minutes. That’s downright dangerous. The last time this happened, the barge, the equipment, was down below in the bridge while winter was coming, and there was certain work that had to be done.

I do know that our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has been involved with this, but that’s not good enough. I just reiterate my call today to Ontario’s Minister of Community Safety; we need him down there as well. The Ministry of Transportation is trying. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs—again, I’ve observed this for the last nine years with respect to the Grand River and Caledonia and Cayuga—has been relatively ineffective.

I will point out that this coming Saturday, February 28—I regret to say this—is the ninth anniversary of the occupation of a very large subdivision in the town of Caledonia. That’s nine years of mayhem, disorder, serious construction delays, and blockades.

I’ve distributed photographs to every member of this House of a group of native activists lifting a minivan over the side of a bridge and dropping it on the provincial highway down below. It was either on fire when they pushed it over the overpass or was set on fire down below. I have those photographs; it has been nine years. We talk about OPP investigations here. The OPP have had those photographs for nine years. Nobody has ever been charged with throwing this minivan off the overpass onto a provincial highway. This is what goes on down in Caledonia.

Because of this chill—and I see it as essentially political correctness run wild—we don’t have action. We can’t get anything done down there, and it’s downright dangerous. I have had people phone me because their sister is in a coma in the hospital because native activists have shut down a highway like the bypass in Caledonia, and you get these godawful detours around back roads; however, people are still barrelling down these secondary roads at provincial highway speed.

The more that we can do, as this title suggests, under Bill 31 to make Ontario roads safer would serve my riding very well and would serve Haldimand county very well. All we ask is for the law to kick in and for these projects to kick forward.

Speaker, whether it be transportation or native protests on the highways or on the main street of Caledonia shutting down infrastructure projects, very simply all we ask is a return—I don’t think it’s too much to ask—to peace, order and good government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m always happy to stand in this House and to talk about legislation that’s happening, the effect that it will have on the province and our agreement or disagreement with what the Liberals are bringing forward or what the government is bringing forward.

There are a lot of good things in this bill that we’re very supportive of, things like stiffer penalties for distracted driving. When I did my debate in this House, I talked in depth about the folks that we have seen driving distracted and the statistics that were brought forward regarding the amount of accidents that happen because of distracted driving. So I’m really happy to see that that’s being addressed in this bill.

Drugged driving: We know that there are not proper measurements to test these folks yet for whether they’re under the influence of drugs. Yes, we have measures to test for alcohol, but drugged driving is something that I’m definitely happy to see in this bill, and making sure that we have provisions to make sure that people are safe on the streets.

New legislation for cycling: A one-metre distance is a good thing, making sure that—it’s your bill, right?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s our bill.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s our bill. The member from Parkdale–High Park is just saying that that’s our bill. That’s something the New Democrats have pushed for, and we’re happy to see that it’s in this bill.

What else? One of the problems that I see with this bill is on the 407 and how it weakens the notification process for the 407. We know that sometimes a bill could be missed in the mail, or something could happen. The 407 seems to have all the ability of law to just wreak havoc on a person’s world. I’m sorry to see that that’s in here.

Thank you, Speaker; I appreciated the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to stand up and talk for a few minutes about Bill 31, which makes a large number of amendments to various traffic legislation. I agree with the member from Hamilton Mountain that there are really a lot of good things in here.

From the point of view of a Minister of Education, one thing that may not have gotten a lot of notice is the fact that there is a prohibition on any bus other than a school bus being painted that classic chrome yellow, because we want the public to be aware, when they see a bus and it’s painted chrome yellow, to have absolute certainty that it’s a school bus, not something that maybe isn’t a school bus. It will make it clear that only school buses can use that classic paint colour.

In a time when we’re also encouraging children to walk or bike to school, it’s also good to see the traffic rules around people who are cycling being toughened up a little bit, such as requiring drivers to give a metre when passing; making it clearer that it’s actually legal to drive your bike on paved shoulders, other than on the controlled-access highways and the 400 series; and increasing penalties if you’re a person who opens a door without checking and doors a cyclist, as people in the cycling community would call it. It’s great to see some of those amendments in there.

One that has always been a problem in our constituency office has been trying to bring some clarity around the whole issue of people who have medical conditions, which leads to a loss of licence.

We need to get on with passing this, because there are so many good amendments in here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m going to speak at length a little bit later this afternoon on a number of items in here, but I really want to bring out one that resonates with me a lot: the emergency vehicles. It says, “We support the requirement of all drivers to move into another lane when approaching stopped emergency vehicles and tow trucks with flashing lights.”

I’d like to commend our PC caucus colleague Garfield Dunlop for bringing the government’s attention to this issue with his “slow down, move over” private member’s bill. It’s certainly something where, particularly for our younger generation, I’m not certain at times that they really have had the experience to understand that, when you see the flashing lights—in our case, there are a lot of volunteer fire departments that have green flashing lights, and it’s something that is law. It is legislation that they should be doing it.

Sadly, I was down in the Windsor area just after Christmas for a family friend’s father’s funeral, and I was so impressed and so struck by how many cars actually pulled over as the funeral procession was going by. That’s not something that’s legislated; that, to me, is just good common courtesy and respect for the person who had passed. It was just so striking to see all the people—almost every car actually did that and allowed the whole funeral procession to go by.

But it raises the issue, again, of the green lights. Our volunteers—those men and women who volunteer in our fire departments out in rural Ontario—come out and put their life on the line. They’re speeding to try to get to, perhaps, your loved one—you are injured; your house is on fire—and people are pulling over and ensuring that they can do that, so they can go on unimpeded and get there as quickly as possible. That’s certainly one that I like to see in here.

There are a number of good points in this bill. I’m going to speak to them. It’s almost like an omnibus bill. I think there are about nine different categories, so I’m not going to be able to cover them all.

My colleague so aptly brought up—I think one of his main tenets is general law and order, to make it safer for everyone in our community. I think we need to do that. I think we need to go back to basics. Having said that, I also want to make sure that we’re not making more regulations, red tape and administrative burdens for the people of Ontario, but to be an efficient and safe province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my distinct honour, of course, to rise in the Legislature and speak on Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Highway 407 East Act, 2012 and the Highway Traffic Act in respect of various matters and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act. Any time that we have the chance to make our communities safer, that’s an important conversation to have.

My colleague made the comment that this is almost an omnibus bill. This bill crams a whole lot of different ideas in here and, as we read through it, a number of different recommendations. For example, the CAA has been pushing for this “slow down, move over” piece for a long time. So it’s important to see that many of these recommendations are being pulled in and factored in.

When we’re talking about communities and safety—as we know, I come from the public education world. School zones and crosswalks are right outside our front door. There’s a piece in this bill that strengthens the distinct visual identity of school buses, and that’s an important piece. No part of a bus other than a school bus can be painted that chrome yellow that we all know and recognize and identify.

From slowing down and moving over to bus safety—we cover a number of things in this bill. Also, distracted driving: The OPP says it’s our number one killer.

I’ll tell you a story, and I probably shouldn’t. I may have had a speeding ticket in my day. I may have, once or twice, had a speeding ticket. But being in a room making my case and hearing those around me, everyone else in that room, with maybe one or two exceptions, was there because of distracted driving. That really drove it home, if you’ll pardon the expression, that this needs to be a priority, and we’re glad to see this in this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our questions and comments for this round. I return to the member for Haldimand–Norfolk for his reply.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thanks, Speaker. I appreciate the actually quite diverse comments in return—and again, given the nature of what has been described as somewhat of an omnibus bill. It’s an important issue. It’s an important bill to keep moving forward through debate.

Canada was not built by people who were afraid to take on challenges, especially with our road and bridge projects and other infrastructure. Imagine Canada, for example, without the Trans-Canada Highway. I guess it was in the early 1960s that that link was made. I remember that our father drove us up there to show us where the road ended; you couldn’t get to the other side of Ontario from there. The Canadian Pacific Railway: That was a mammoth project where politicians and everybody pulled together.

Pipelines, infrastructure, water and sewer, upgrades to rail, sea links and road links—all important to pull us together, our social cohesion, and important for manufacturing and agribusiness and our primary industries.

My concern: the distraction, to put it mildly, of wasteful spending that takes away money from capital projects, a situation where we know of the horrendous debt in the province of Ontario; money that is being borrowed, essentially, for the day-to-day operation of this province to meet the payroll, to meet the pension obligations. Normally, one would expect government to borrow money, obviously, for a crisis or what have you. You would expect this money to be borrowed for infrastructure projects like roads, not just to meet the payroll.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in this House, on behalf of the people I represent in London West, to join the debate on Bill C-31, the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer act. This is a very comprehensive bill that brings together two previous pieces of legislation that were introduced in the last Parliament but not passed: the Highway Traffic Statute Law Amendment Act, which gave municipalities additional tools to collect defaulted traffic fines from drivers; and the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, which included provisions to enhance pedestrian, driver and cyclist safety.

In addition, Bill 31 includes important new measures to deal with drugged driving as well as stiffer penalties for distracted driving, which has become the number one killer on Ontario’s roads, as we hear from the OPP.

Since I have limited time for debate today, I won’t be able to speak to all the provisions of the bill, but I did want to highlight a couple of aspects that are particularly significant for my community. Those are the cycling safety provisions, which were originally introduced by my NDP colleague the member for Parkdale–High Park, and municipal traffic fine collection.

There is great work going on in my community to promote cycling and encourage more Londoners to cycle. The Medway Working Group has been working hard on a plan to identify and address barriers to active transportation, including, of course, cycling. Earlier this month, the city of London launched its rapid transit initiative, Shift, a plan that will also map safe cycling routes throughout the city.

This Friday there is going to be a mapping party organized by London Cycle Link to engage the community in planning London’s new bicycle routes. Of course, provincial legislation to ensure the safety of cyclists is vital to support and strengthen and grow these local initiatives.

The other part of the bill that is critical for London, as well as communities across the province, are the new tools for municipalities to collect unpaid fines. We heard during pre-budget hearings from the mayor of London about the millions in unpaid traffic fines that are owed to the city. Certainly, municipalities need these tools, and the bill is a good step to streamline the process. We, on this side of the House, do have some questions about how the bill will enable the collection of fines from out-of-province drivers, and how it will enable the sharing of information across ministries.

I’m going to use the remainder of my time to focus on the

section of Bill 31 that clarifies doctors’ and optometrists’ obligations regarding medical licence suspensions. My reason for focusing on this

section of the act is the increasing number of phone calls and emails I’ve been getting from constituents about unacceptably long wait times for people to get their driver’s licences reinstated after they’ve received a clean bill of health from their medical professional. This is a matter that is critical to my constituents in London West, especially those who rely on their vehicles for employment.

Bill 31 includes regulations to prescribe which medical professionals must support a medical condition and which medical conditions must be supported. Clearly, clarifying these responsibilities is a welcome improvement over the current situation, which is open-ended about responsibilities for reporting the medical conditions that may make it dangerous for a person to drive. My main concern, as I mentioned, is that the bill does not do anything to address the other issue related to medical licence suspensions: the wait times once the medical condition has been resolved.

The ministry currently says that their target service standard is four weeks for a driver to get their licence back after a medical suspension. The ministry says that they hit this service standard 85% to 90% of the time. I can’t speak for the other members of this House and what is happening in the rest of the province, but I can tell you that in London West the ministry is not even coming close to meeting that target.

I’d like to share with this House the stories of some of my constituents whose jobs and ability to earn a living have been put directly at risk because they have been forced to wait months and months for the ministry to reissue their driver’s licences.

My first example is Dave Wilson, a transit driver who had a medical issue that resulted in his class C commercial licence being downgraded to a class G. Dave was required to serve a waiting period while his medical condition was being treated. When his waiting period ended, in October 2014, Dave contacted the ministry to ask what was required from the medical review

section to get his licence reinstated.

He was told he needed a letter from his doctor. So he promptly went to his doctor, got the letter and faxed it to the ministry. Two months later, Dave received a letter from the ministry saying he, in fact, needed a full medical as well as many other forms to be completed by his doctor.

Now, why did the ministry not give Dave that information the first time, when he inquired in October about what he needed to do? Dave immediately faxed the medical reports that were required from his physician to the ministry, but it then took numerous inquiries from my office before he finally received a letter from the Ministry of Transportation giving him leave to reapply for his class C commercial licence.

Speaker, it took more than four months for Dave to get the okay to begin the process of having his licence reinstated. Over that period, Dave’s employer became concerned about the length of time it was taking for the reinstatement of his licence. Dave worried that he could lose his job. Four months is a completely unacceptable length of time for someone to wait, especially when they are as diligent as Dave was in terms of contacting the ministry to find out what the next steps were in the process.

My second example is Peter Hanford, owner of Hanford’s Tire and Service, located in London West. Peter experienced a medical issue in September 2014 which resulted in his licence getting a medical suspension. In November, Peter’s physician gave him the green light. He submitted his health information to the ministry. He was obviously anxious to get his licence reinstated. He made numerous attempts to contact the MTO and was often forced to wait in an answering machine queue for longer than an hour. All he wanted to do was find out why he had not heard back from the ministry about the status of his licence.

My office also became involved, inquiring with the ministry about the status of Peter’s case. Two months later, my office received a response from the ministry indicating that more medical information was required. Again, this is well beyond the 30-day ministry service standard response time. So we’re now nearing the end of February—remember that this issue first started in September 2014—and Peter Hanford’s situation has yet to be resolved.

Peter has described the process of having his licence reinstated as “excruciating.” He says it has been “impossible to get information about what is required from the MTO.”

A third example—yet another example—is Steve Everett, who has also experienced long delays, along with the ministry misplacing his medical records while he’s been dealing with the medical review

section of the Ministry of Transportation. Steve had a job offer and has come very close to losing out on his ability to get employment because of the ministry’s delays, through no fault of his own.

These are just a few of the stories I’ve been hearing from my constituents. They highlight the fact that unacceptably long wait times at the MTO are jeopardizing people’s ability to find and maintain employment.

Certa