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

May 14, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-May-14 (PDF)

L085 - Thu 14 May 2015 / Jeu 14 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 14 May 2015 Jeudi 14 mai 2015

Orders of the Day

Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

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

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Order and decorum in chamber

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Nurses

Teachers’ labour disputes

Youth services / Services à la jeunesse

Sexual harassment

Privatization of public assets

Employment standards

Public safety

Nurses

Police services

Pesticides

Highway improvement

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

Estimates

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Endangered species

Childhood apraxia of speech

Ismaili community / Communauté ismaélienne

Legislative page program

Privatization of public assets

St. Mary of the Angels Catholic School

Cailyn Perry

Nurses

Children and Youth in Care Day

Member’s birthday

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Apraxia Awareness Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour de la sensibilisation à l’apraxie

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Children and Youth in Care Day / Jour des enfants et des jeunes pris en charge

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Terry Fox Day

Hydro rates

Off-road vehicles

Student safety

Trespassing

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Demonstration at Queen’s Park

Ontario Disability Support Program

Student safety

Private Members’ Public Business

Human trafficking / Traite des personnes

Highway improvement

Vaccinations

Human trafficking

Highway improvement

Vaccinations

Highway improvement

Correction of record

Mike O’Leary

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 5, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 13, 2015, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Sousa has moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I’m sorry. A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

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

M me Meilleur moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Madame Meilleur.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I rise in the House today to begin debate on the proposed Strengthening and Improving Government Act. Before I begin, I would like to let the members know that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough Southwest.

Ce projet de loi contient plusieurs mesures importantes qui amélioreront l’efficacité du gouvernement. En fait, la

Loi sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique met à jour 15 lois différentes. Par l’intermédiaire de ce projet de loi, nous envisageons d’apporter des réformes à de nombreux aspects du gouvernement; des reformes qui, dans bon nombre de cas, moderniseront nos programmes et processus, et faciliteront l’accès au systèmes.

I look forward to hearing from the members on this bill as we begin a discussion.

In one way or another, the proposed amendments will affect nearly every resident and business in this province. These changes will ultimately support our government’s efforts to keep our economy moving and build Ontario up. Some of the amendments will solidify rights and freedoms of Ontarians and non-residents. Some will provide better support for families. For example, changes to the Courts of Justice Act would reflect the new non-resident divorce permitted under the federal Civil Marriage Act.

This legislation applies to same-sex couples and others who were married in Ontario but whose own jurisdiction does not legally recognize their union, making divorce impossible where they now live. We want to make it clear that everyone is treated equally.

Un autre changement proposé devrait rendre la vie des familles avec enfants plus facile. Après la rupture d’un mariage, la question de la garde des enfants et des pensions alimentaires surgit souvent. Nous voulons nous assurer que les enfants dont les parents ne vivent plus ensemble sont entre de bonnes mains et qu’ils reçoivent tout le soutien dont ils ont besoin pour grandir heureux et en bonne santé. C’est pourquoi mon ministère travaille sur un plan qui permettra facilement aux parents de mettre en place et de changer en ligne des paiements de pensions alimentaires.

Proposed amendments to the Family Law Act will clarify that parents who use the online child support service, once it becomes operational, would have the same ongoing financial disclosure obligations as parents who are paying a child support order from a family court.

Receiving updated financial disclosure helps a parent who receives child support decide whether they should apply to update their child support amount based on the other parent’s income. This disclosure is integral to the child support payment process.

We are also looking out for those who watched over us when we were younger. As our parents age, we know how important it is to have trusted people surrounding them and quality services to care for them. Si vous avez un père ou une mère malade qui vit à domicile ou dans un établissement de soins de longue durée, vous savez à quel point le transport est problématique, surtout si votre père ou votre mère doit être transporté sur une civière.

Pour bon nombre d’entre nous, cela signifie utiliser un service de transport spécial avec civière et confier notre être cher à un fournisseur de services privé. Nous voulons nous assurer que les membres de notre famille sont en sécurité et bien soignés, et nous voulons avoir entièrement confiance dans les fournisseurs de services. C’est pourquoi nous proposons des modifications au Code de la route qui imposeraient des règlements rigoureux aux véhicules de transport avec civière et à leurs conducteurs. C’est une industrie qui n’a jamais été réglementée. Si les fournisseurs de services ne remplissent pas nos normes, ils risquent de perdre leur entreprise. C’est très simple.

We are also trying to make it easier to move people on a larger scale. Making investments in infrastructure not only grows the economy, but it puts in place services that people and communities rely on. The proposed amendment to the City of Toronto Act would adjust provisions regarding Toronto Transit Commission operation in nearby municipalities. The TTC and the regional municipality of York have reached an agreement in this regard, and these changes will help make it easier to operate the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension.

Looking even further down the road, this will allow for more collaboration when it comes to delivering regional transit across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. It will give the TTC flexibility to enter into similar agreements with other neighbouring municipalities for future projects. The Toronto-York Spadina subway extension would help both transit commuters and those in their cars. It’s expected to add 36 million transit trips and eliminate 30 million car trips each year. It will help get the GTHA moving. These are just some of the proposed amendments outlined in this act.

Même si certains de ces changements semblent relativement mineurs, ils sont conçus pour rendre la vie des Ontariens et Ontariennes plus facile. Ces modifications vont renforcer nos collectivités et stimuler la croissance de l’économie.

Pour satisfaire les besoins constamment changeants des Ontariens et des Ontariennes, le gouvernement doit avoir des services, des programmes et des politiques modernes et efficaces.

Je passe maintenant la parole à mon adjoint parlementaire qui parlera plus en détail de la

Loi sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique.

I hope that all members will support the important changes in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to continue debate on the proposed Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

I would first like to thank the Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleur, as well as the Ministers of Health and Long-Term Care; Government and Consumer Services; Labour; Education; Municipal Affairs and Housing; Training, Colleges and Universities; and Transportation. Thank you all for your help in putting together such a comprehensive bill. Without you, this wouldn’t have been possible. It’s a real demonstration of how every part of this government is working together to respond to the ever-evolving needs of families, businesses and entire communities.

Taken together, this discrete set of significant amendments to 15 Ontario laws will contribute to the government’s plan to build Ontario up. With every step we take to modernize the processes and improve the efficiency of government, we are strengthening the foundation of this province.

As I noted a moment ago, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act includes amendments to 15 existing pieces of legislation. They are: the City of Toronto Act, the Highway Traffic Act, the Courts of Justice Act, the Family Law Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, and several others as well.

While some of these changes are as small as refreshing the wording of an existing statute, others have the potential to significantly impact the lives of Ontarians.

Earlier, the Attorney General spoke of our proposal to regulate non-emergency transportation services. We entrust the transportation of our loved ones to these unregulated companies and to these drivers. That’s why it’s so important that we take steps to make sure our family members are treated professionally and are kept safe.

But this is not the only thing we’re looking to improve in the Highway Traffic Act. Other proposed changes aim to make paperwork easier for drivers. This would give the transportation ministry options when serving a notice of intention to cancel a vehicle permit or driver’s licence. In addition to traditional letter mail, for example, such notices could be delivered at a ServiceOntario counter. This could help ensure that drivers receive their notice before any licence cancellation takes place. They will also be given the opportunity and the appropriate amount of time to respond to any requirements, if need be.

Proposed changes to the Highway Traffic Act will also allow for electronic correspondence relating to commercial vehicle operators’ registration. This includes accepting applications, renewals and client updates. It allows the Ministry of Transportation to issue notices, commercial vehicle operator certificates and account updates electronically.

It is all part of how we are planning to modernize government processes. Doing so allows us to evolve and look to the future, all while helping residents by making services more convenient.

You can also see modernization through our amendment to the Provincial Offences Act that allows for certain records to be created and transferred electronically. This change would create a legal authority for provincial offences courts to maintain an end-to-end electronic court record, from the filing of a charge to the disposition of a case.

This would also put in place a framework that would allow municipalities that are equipped to implement new technologies to do so. In municipalities where these new electronic records are adopted, court users would have the opportunity to choose a format to receive documents that is easier for them, such as email. It could also lead to reduced postage costs for the local courthouse.

We have also committed to propose several changes set out in the 2012 Physician Services Agreement with the OMA as part of our promise to provide better health care for all Ontarians—and hopefully prevent sneezing from happening during my debate.

If this bill is passed, the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act will provide immunity for OMA directors and staff but not the association itself. The point of this proposed provision is to limit legal action against representatives for acts done in good faith during negotiations with the government related to physician agreements and payments, for example, agreements that contain fee changes for certain physician groups.

We need to make these updates surrounding agreements made with those who provide health care for all Ontarians. It speaks to our values that health and safety are of paramount importance for everyone in this province.

This is why we must ensure that the safety of people in the workforce continues to evolve and is made stronger. The amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act would incorporate new standards that could improve worker health and safety, as employers and workers will have access to a wider range of information about hazardous workplace chemicals. These changes are part of a broader national initiative to adopt international standards for classifying hazardous workplace chemicals and providing information on labels and safety data sheets. To adopt the new standards requires changes to federal and provincial or territorial regulations.

Amendments to federal hazardous products legislation and regulations came into force this past February. All provincial and territorial governments are in the process of amending their occupational health and safety legislation and regulations to reflect the federal changes. Now it’s our turn. The information will be presented in a standardized format which will be easier to understand than the labels and safety data sheets currently in place. We’re looking at all aspects of Ontarians’ lives, Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the examples I’ve set out for you and the members so far. Many changes will be coming.

Consider the amendments to the Vital Statistics Act. They would allow the stock that is used for certificates and certified copies of registrations, which have the signature of the Registrar General and/or the Deputy Registrar General reproduced, to continue to be used when those individuals leave office. This would be the case for documents such as long form birth certificates. Currently, certificates have the signatures of both the Registrar General and Deputy Registrar General, and certified copies of registrations have the signature of the Deputy Registrar General.

When these individuals no longer hold office, certificate stock and stock for certified copies of registrations that have reproductions of their signatures can no longer be used. Because of this, the Vital Statistics Act amendment would reduce waste and save costs. This amendment would also align Ontario’s practices with those of most jurisdictions in Canada.

I realize this is a lengthy list of amendments; there are even more listed in this bill, beyond those discussed by myself and the Attorney General this morning. We want to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of government for the people of Ontario. They are, and always will be, top of mind, which is why I encourage members to support this bill. It’s for residents; it’s for businesses; it’s for all of Ontario.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I was trying to listen intently, and I had a little trouble following the last part about people who weren’t in office anymore, so hopefully in the remaining time for the government side of the House we can learn a little bit more about what that was about, or maybe I can get some more information from the member who was speaking.

I think we all recognize that we’re here to serve the public, not just our own self-interests. We’re not here just to clap for each other, although some days it certainly feels that way. I think we’re here to have the best interests of the public in mind.

If we want to safeguard health care and our medicare system, as the member was just saying; if we want to have a top education system in the world; if we want to take care of our seniors; if we want to take care of people with Alzheimer’s and dementia—who were visiting us yesterday—and provide support for their caregivers, who are often family members who quit jobs to take care of residents—all these types of things that we’re trying to help. I believe that all of us here have the same caring personalities. That’s why we’re here, and we want to serve the public.

But we also have to understand that we have to watch the revenue coming in and the expenditures going out. Without adequate resources, we cannot hold on to medicare, we cannot help our seniors and we cannot have a top-rated education system in the world.

I’m just hopeful that we can stop the wasteful spending and start streamlining and using the computer systems that so many other governments are using to streamline agencies and to better serve the public, using less of the valuable resources, so that those resources can go where they’re meant to go, to serve the very people who voted us into office.

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

M me France Gélinas: I must say that I’ve been here for almost eight years, and for the entire time that I’ve been here, I have been pushing this government to regulate the private “looks like ambulance” service that we have in Ontario. The Ombudsman has spoken. The Auditor General has spoken. This has to be regulated. It makes no sense. It puts patients at risk.

So I was pleased to see that, finally, we are doing something. But if all we are doing is changing a few things, so that the ambulances themselves are safer, and putting a little bit of responsibility on the drivers, I would say that I didn’t wait for eight years to only get that. I’m not going to stand for this, Speaker.

Are those good steps? Yes, absolutely. Those ambulances—I think the Ombudsman said it best: They look and smell like an ambulance, but they may lose a wheel on their way to the call. It is not what we want in Ontario. Am I happy that we’re going to be regulating the actual vehicles? Yes. I don’t want the wheels falling off, and I don’t want the patients falling out the back door, either.

But this is not enough. To have a vehicle that is safe and worthy to be on the road is one step. To make sure that the people in the back of the ambulance know how to look after your grandfather and grandmother and everybody else that the minister said rides in the back of that ambulance—this has not been addressed.

Sure, the wheels won’t fall off of those pretend ambulances anymore; that’s good. But New Democrats want way more than that. We want full regulations so that we have quality of care, not just quality of vehicles.

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s a really wonderful opportunity for me to add my voice to the debate and discussion around Bill 85 this morning.

I want to pay tribute, of course, to the Attorney General and to our colleague the member from Scarborough Southwest, who serves as the Attorney General’s parliamentary assistant.

There has been a lot of discussion already, particularly from both the minister and her parliamentary assistant, with respect to the wide variety of elements that are included in this legislation.

As the Minister of Transportation, there are two that stand out for me. I’m going to focus, for the remaining time that I have, on the importance of moving forward with the revisions, or the enhancements or improvements, to the City of Toronto Act, even though it doesn’t technically fall, as legislation, within the purview of the Ministry of Transportation as a result of what’s included here in Bill 85.

It will significantly help with respect to a major transit infrastructure project, the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension, which, as many will know in this House, is a project that will extend, for the very first time, Toronto’s subway system into a neighbouring municipality, into York region, coming up to the city of Vaughan and arriving, ultimately, in the Vaughan Corporate Centre, which is physically located in the riding of Thornhill, but it serves people from the riding of Thornhill, and people from my own riding and my own community of the rest of the city of Vaughan: Woodbridge residents, Maple residents, Kleinburg residents and many others beyond.

But beyond the fact that it comes to the city of Vaughan, it also will provide, for the first time, a subway connection to York University. Somewhere north of 50,000 students a day travel to that campus. By having that subway up and running and by making sure, through Bill 85 and through a number of the other leadership decisions that have been made by the government on this side of the House, the Liberal government, with respect to making sure that we invest in this kind of crucial transit infrastructure—it will significantly help those students, tens of thousands of them, to arrive at that campus. So it’s wonderful to stand and support Bill 85 this morning.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m going to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 85, Strengthening and Improving Government Act, in a few minutes. I understand it is an omnibus bill, and there are some concerns I have on the

section on the MTCU and the College of Trades that I just want to bring to the floor again. That has been a very controversial topic in this House, and I look forward to hearing the comments and feedback on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the worries I have with these omnibus bills is that we sometimes think that, just because they cover a bunch of ministries, everything they’re covering is going to be—any of the amendments might be perfect. I’m kind of disappointed that the government only took 10 minutes on the leadoff on something that’s covering so many ministries. I would have thought there would be a lot more clarification from the government members on it.

So I’ll try to add a little bit more to my critic’s portfolio and deal with some of the issues I see that possibly are not being addressed by some of the things that I think should have been addressed right here in the leadoff and in the general legislation.

I look forward to that opportunity, and I’ll be able to speak in a couple of minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I return to the Attorney General. You have two minutes.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Merci, monsieur le Président. First of all, let me say thank you to the members from Thornhill, Nickel Belt, the Minister of Transportation and the member from Simcoe North for their comments.

Let me address, first of all, a question that the member from Thornhill had. It’s very simple: Currently the certificate bears the signature of both the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar General, and certificated copies of registration bear the signature of the Deputy Registrar General. When these individuals are not employees anymore—when they retire—we have this stack of certificates, and we have to throw them out. We cannot use them anymore.

This will permit the ministry to continue to use these certificates. We’re just doing what other provinces are doing. It will reduce waste and save costs. That’s what it is. It’s very simple.

I just want to talk also about the comment by the member from Nickel Belt. Of course, it’s so important to have these individuals who provide non-emergency stretcher transportation services to have good training and that their vehicles are in good operation because—you’re right—they do give service to our loved ones, most of the time our seniors. We want to make sure they are regulated and that our moms and dads receive services that are safe and secure.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I want to share the leadoff with at least, I know, the member from Caledon and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo—did I get that right? Kitchener–Conestoga. I get all the ridings mixed up, Mr. Speaker; I’m so sorry.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You’re like me.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have a real problem. I know Simcoe North, and I know Jim’s is Simcoe–Grey.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m not sure what yours is. It’s in the GTA; I know that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Garfield, we have something in common.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes. Okay.

Again, I applaud the Attorney General for bringing forward Bill 85,

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

Just a note to the Attorney General, first of all, a compliment: Thank you for coming to Simcoe North tomorrow for the announcement of the 400th anniversary of Champlain. The town of Penetanguishene and the area of Huronia have put a tremendous amount of effort into organizing a fantastic event this year on the 400th anniversary of Champlain coming to what is now Ontario. The reality is, we’re going to have celebrations on the August 1 weekend, so I want everybody who is possibly interested in celebrating Champlain to come that weekend to Simcoe county and to the town of Penetanguishene.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Talk about that beautiful park there.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes, okay; I’m going to give the minister another compliment here.

We’re going to also be building a beautiful park. It’s Penetanguishene Rotary Park, and it’s on the water. There will be re-enactments and there will be statues. It’s really going to be a legacy project for the next 100 years at least.

For the 300th anniversary of when Champlain came here, they had it in 1921. The war was taking place during the 300th anniversary. The town of Penetang did a phenomenal job in 1921.

We’re very, very proud of what is taking place. The county, the province of Ontario, the federal government and the town of Penetanguishene have all become strong partners in this project. I’m very proud of it, and I know the minister is very proud of it as well.

That takes us back to Bill 85. It’s such a long bill. I hope that everybody is going to explain all these sections from the government’s point of view even more, because the leadoff wasn’t very long. Probably the minister’s statement was as long as the leadoff. Anyhow, we’re looking forward to it. We’re looking forward to seeing some of these things taking place and some of these corrections being made by this legislation.

As the critic for education and training, colleges and universities, I wanted to speak a little bit about one section:

schedule 6, the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act. It gives the college registrar the authority to appoint an investigator to investigate the conduct of a member and provides that for the purpose of such an investigation, the investigator has all the powers of a commission under

part II of the Public Inquiries Act. This latter act was repealed and replaced by the Public Inquiries Act, 2009. The proposed amendment would replace the reference to the Public Inquiries Act with a reference to the Public Inquiries Act, 2009. The amendment is required to ensure that the statutory cross-references of the act are accurate.

In June 2006, an amendment to the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act provided that each college, rather than its board of governors, was a corporation without share capital. The amendment would provide certainty with respect to the continuity of the ownership of college assets and obligations acquired or incurred before and after June 2006.

The act would be amended to provide certainty with respect to the ownership of assets and obligations, allowing colleges to respond easily to questions about the continuity of ownership, given prior changes in legislation relating to college boards. The second part of that is fairly clear, and I agree with it.

I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, for a minute about the Ontario College of Trades. We fought hard against that. There were two or three ministers, during that period, who we dealt with. Although we’re trying to make amendments to this investigator and add this investigator’s title to the job, I’m still concerned that this is becoming a bureaucracy that is really not needed in the province of Ontario. I think they have six floors in a building downtown on Bay Street.

We brought the legislation in on the Ontario College of Trades act, and what I would suggest to you is that there was very, very little consultation done with the people who hold a certificate of qualification in the trades in Ontario. Those trades basically apply to 22 compulsory trades—and other people have a certificate of qualification in trades that are non-compulsory but they’ve taken the full apprenticeship; for example, there are many people who work as carpenters but they don’t have the C of Q.

The problem was that when we brought in the College of Trades act—there are actually 157 trades in Ontario—there was very little notification, even up to the point where people were getting their invoices in the mail. They didn’t realize what was actually happening at that particular ministry. So the people that had a certificate of qualification in these trades—the trade of electrician, for example—every three years would pay a total of $60 to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, and the cheque was sent to the Ministry of Finance. They would pay that $60 for a three-year certification.

A sticker would come in the mail, they would put it on their certificate-of-qualification licence, and that would entitle them to practise in that trade for the next three years.

What’s happened is, the fees went up substantially; they went up about 676%. They are now $130 a year plus the HST. That is per year. So it used to be $20 a year. It’s now $138.50, or something like that, the exact amount of money.

On top of that, why I’m concerned is that, first of all, a lot of people didn’t even send their licences in; they didn’t send the cheque in—they didn’t get it in the mail or whatever. So there’s still a lot of turmoil right in that particular area. But on top of that, now they’ve got the bookkeeping to worry about every year. So for somebody who has been in the trades for the last 20 years and who has been used to doing it every three years, now what’s happening? They have to do it every year. Already, people have forgotten about having to make sure their licence is renewed. Once you lose it, we don’t know what the long-term impact will be in actually getting that licence back.

The whole consultation that took place around the Ontario College of Trades, I thought, was not done in a very professional manner, and, as a result of that, tradespeople today in Ontario are quite bitter that they had to join this and they’ve paid these fees that are substantially higher.

The government recognized that, and we certainly mentioned that leading up to the election last June, on June 12. During the election, Premier Wynne announced—they were up in Thunder Bay, and I remember her quote. She said that, based on the success of its first year—the College of Trades—we were going to have a review of it. If you were going to have a review of it, I don’t think it was very successful. That’s what we asked for. So Tony Dean is actually doing a review of the Ontario College of Trades right today.

The problem is, again, we haven’t gone back to the tradespeople. The government has the database to send out the invoices for the renewal of their membership in the College of Trades each and every year. But what I suggest—and I’ve got it on the order paper as a question—is that a letter, a survey, should also be sent out to all the tradespeople in Ontario; that’s all of the people who have a C of Q. They should be able to have a survey on what their feelings were on the College of Trades.

It shouldn’t be a former bureaucrat here at Queen’s Park saying, “This is what’s right and this is what’s wrong”; it should be the tradespeople themselves having a say in whether they believe the College of Trades should even be in existence, or where the College of Trades could be a benefit, or what are the negative things. They have not been informed on this at all. So that’s every tradesperson who walks to work with their tool box or their lunch box and they’re working on these job sites day in and day out; they have no say whatsoever in the review. I think that’s wrong.

I know we’re making an amendment to the investigator and enforcement section, because the College of Trades has, I believe, 79 vehicles out there now, and they’ve got enforcement people running around making sure people have their licences and all that kind of thing. But when we’re doing a review of something so important, that impacts all the tradespeople in the province of Ontario, I think it’s a duty and a responsibility, as part of that review, that every tradesperson should be given a proper survey asking a series of questions, and one of the questions would be, “Should the College of Trades even exist?”

I, for example, am a strong supporter of the community college system in Ontario. As the critic, I’ve been at, I believe, about 15 of them now. I’ve actually visited them, right from one end of the province to the other. I’ve still got to do the ones in northern Ontario and in the Sault Ste. Marie area and Timmins. But the reality is that these community colleges are doing a fantastic job.

I think that the community college system could actually be responsible for all the trades in Ontario, and we wouldn’t need to have an Ontario College of Trades. We wouldn’t need to have this awkward apprenticeship system we’ve got today. I think there’s a way we can improve the community college system and let them actually be the leaders in it.

If you’re applying today to be a doctor, you don’t apply to a college of trades. You don’t have to work through a group like that. You apply to a university. The proper university will get you into a medical school, if you’ve got the proper marks, and you go through the system that way.

I think the same thing should apply to the community college system with trades. If you want to be a tradesperson, you go and you enrol in the community college that has the best program—say, for example, if it’s electricity and you want to go to Humber College, or if it’s welding and you want to go to Seneca, something like that. These community colleges have all of that information available. They have the framework and the infrastructure in place to actually enhance and improve the apprenticeship and training programs right here in Ontario.

I want to just zero in on that for a second. The community college systems will be 50 years old in 2017, I believe it is. I hope a lot of them will be celebrating their phenomenal accomplishments. Every community college I go to has some kind of expertise in certain areas. It’s mind-boggling. They actually don’t get a chance to brag province-wide about the types of things that they do in our community colleges.

My friend from Kitchener here, my colleague, he’ll tell you all about the things that are happening at Conestoga. It’s just mind-boggling. People in London will tell you what’s happening at Fanshawe. There are just some amazing programs taking place—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Or Niagara College.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Niagara College, with their partnerships with the grape and wine industry. These are amazing things to see.

Mr. Speaker, if an MPP hasn’t been to their own community college in their own area, I would suggest that they make sure they get tours, they get to meet the presidents and the boards of directors. Not only that, maybe go to other areas as well and see some of the expertise that’s provided in the other community colleges in other areas. They are really, really remarkable.

I personally work with the community college—mostly, the one I work with is Georgian College, which has seven locations in the county of Simcoe and up into Muskoka and Grey-Bruce. They have unbelievable campuses, leading up to all kinds of expertise in all different fields. I believe the graduation rate at Georgian now—92% of the people will have job within six months of graduation. That’s pretty successful.

When I say that the community college system should be responsible for the full apprenticeship program, I mean that sincerely. They should be the people who are taking the lead on what trades become compulsorily certified and what trades remain with the current C of Qs.

Of course, the other thing that they can be zeroing in on is the number of students they allow into the system. We’re a supporter of the 1-to-1 ratio, in our caucus. The government and the College of Trades, of course, are not in favour of that. That’s a whole complex issue in itself, and I’m not going to zero in on all that today.

The reality is that the community college system in Ontario is capable of doing much of the work, or most of the work, that the Ontario College of Trades is set up to do. It appears now to be no more than a duplication.

Tradespeople with the College of Trades have kind of given up. They say, “Okay, we’ve just got to pay more. It’s another bunch of money.” They’re not really overly impressed with the enforcement division of it. For example, people can be tradespersons and they can be running a legitimate company, and they have to follow all the rules of the Ministry of Labour—the number of apprentices, the ratio system in the apprenticeship system. They might be paying their taxes and paying the full amount of money, and everything they have to do to survive in business.

What happens is, they could be in an area—say, for example, a cottage area—where new cottages are being built. People will come up on a weekend with a load of electrical wire, they’ll wire up a cottage or something, and they won’t get any inspections done on it. They buy their wire at Home Depot or Canadian Tire or something, so they’re doing the job cheaper, and they’re doing it without any inspections. That’s work that the local contractor didn’t get that he was actually qualified to do.

Yet the College of Trades enforcement division will go after the local contractor over whether he’s got the right number of apprentices or not, and these guys—we call them “fly-by-nights,” guys who work out of their trunks—get away scot-free. You can complain to the College of Trades, and no will go after that guy. No one is going to go into a cottage road on a Saturday afternoon in the summer to see if some guy’s doing a job illegally. They’ll go after the guy—9 to 5, Monday to Thursday—and make sure that he hasn’t got a labourer or a 17-year-old kid out of high school working on a construction site who’s not an actual apprentice.

These are the things that are not being addressed at the College of Trades. We can fix up these bills, like Bill 85, which makes a minor amendment to the College of Trades act. What I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, is the College of Trades isn’t working. It’s simply not working here in Ontario. It’s very, very disappointing that we bring this up over and over again.

There was a chance to fix some of these things; that was with the review that Mr. Dean’s doing. I’m really disappointed that a letter couldn’t go out, a survey couldn’t have gone out, to all these people to say, “What is your opinion on this? Have you got ideas to improve the College of Trades? What would you like to see done with it?” Instead, they’re just completely ignored.

There will be changes made to the College of Trades, and the people who will suffer as a result of those changes are the people who are paying the bills now. That’s how the College of Trades functions. It functions on the membership fees, and they’re not getting an opportunity as a result of that to be addressed in a professional manner. Actually, I would say tradespeople are being treated as second-class citizens as a result of this survey.

I know I’m taking way more time than I should have—

Ms. Laurie Scott: No, no, keep going.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, I don’t have a lot more to say. How much longer can I go? I need a drink of water.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: It’s okay. It’s okay.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m doing this on the fly, Liz, you know.

Anyhow, thank you very much. That was my chance to say a few words on the college. I want to pass it on now to the member from Kitchener, who will continue on.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: I appreciated listening to my colleague’s remarks; he talks a lot about a lot of things. I’m not going to get up to his riding this weekend, but I wish him and all the folks in his riding a happy anniversary.

Speaker, it’s a great opportunity to join the debate on Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015, a wide-ranging act amending 15 pieces of legislation, including the Highway Traffic Act.

I’d like to kick off my comments by noting my clear support for both strengthening and improving government. Clearly, there’s no end to the long list of areas where this government could improve. Just look at the latest budget: It reads like a what-not-to-do guide to government.

There’s so much room for improving government, as the title of the act suggests, it’s hard to know where to begin. Whether it be shell games with our assets to disguise a long-entrenched Liberal government spending addiction, taking money from health care to pay the interest on the debt or picking winners and losers for transit funding, the Ontario budget’s direction to build Ontario up points us toward continued economic and labour turmoil that threatens to tear Ontario down.

There are so many areas for improvement, Speaker. As Bill 85 does address the Highway Traffic Act to improve transportation in Ontario, I do want to highlight the many concerns for improved transportation and transit infrastructure that the bill leaves untouched. As I noted earlier, this government’s budget announcement and its series of high-profile transit announcements in the preceding weeks saw the Wynne Liberals continue their practice of picking winners and losers, where winners receive funding for LRT or regional express rail while others are left wondering if the Wynne Liberal government will ever deliver on promises in their area.

Take the $1.6 billion for funding of the Hurontario LRT, while folks in Hamilton, who were also promised full funding, continue to wait at the end of the table for whatever scraps the government may have left to throw them. Meanwhile, we have the regional government in Waterloo, where I’m from, which was originally promised two-thirds funding for their LRT by the provincial Liberals—funding which was subsequently dropped to only a third, leaving municipal taxpayers on the hook that those in Mississauga and Brampton somehow evaded. That’s a true story, Speaker.

Where’s the fairness? Where’s the consistency? I submit that if we’re looking for ways to improve government, we may want to start by ensuring we’re not just making our transit plans up as we go along. It’s the same situation with regional express rail, the key component for delivery of the all-day, two-way GO promise this government has made to residents in my area of Kitchener-Waterloo and to many throughout the province.

Yes, the minister and the Premier did go to great lengths to get in front of cameras and strike up the band to cheer on regional express rail to Barrie, yet after months of promising all-day, two-way service for the people of Kitchener-Waterloo, expansions on the Kitchener line sadly weren’t even mentioned.

While the Premier had indicated expanded GO train service would happen “immediately” prior to the election, and the former minister said it could actually happen within five years, the onslaught of new transit announcements contain no mention of when the promised two-way, all-day service the people of Barrie are now welcoming will ever make its way to the region of Waterloo.

Commuters in Waterloo region have been given the impression again and again that two-way, all-day GO service, with frequent trains going east—that’s important—and westbound—even more important—all day long, was just around the corner: Buy your ticket now. Now, I don’t even think it’s clear what this government is committed to.

To add insult to injury, after announcing the Wynne Liberal government plan for selling off Hydro One to supposedly pay for transit priorities, the budget is now telling municipalities who have yet to be allocated provincial funding for their rail extension projects to sell off their assets of their—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. Point of order, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I know this very important legislation is very broad, but I’m pretty sure the member from Kitchener–Conestoga is not within a million miles of speaking to the elements of this particular legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you for your point of order. I’m listening very carefully and I was getting close to that.

Continue, the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: A million miles? I mean, jeez, that’s what we’ll have to drive around this province instead of taking that GO train from Kitchener-Waterloo.

Ms. Cindy Forster: What about the bullet?

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, or the bullet train from Windsor to Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask you to tie it to the current bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Michael Harris: Obviously, this bill touches on the Highway Traffic Act. I think it’s appropriate that we speak to that, and I think it’s important. When you talk about the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, that’s a pretty broad title. I can loop a lot back in simply by referencing the title.

If we want to talk about improving government, strengthening Ontario, we have to talk about the investments they’ve made and the ones that they haven’t, but promised to. I think it’s absolutely appropriate to talk about the promised all-day, two-way GO service for Waterloo region—only to find now that they want us to sell off our assets. That was actually mentioned in the budget.

Look, we could be here all day. I’ve only got so much time left, because I am sharing with the member from Dufferin–Caledon. That said, when it comes to Bill 85’s parameters regarding improvements to the Highway Traffic Act, I feel it’s a bit like, in the words of Yogi Berra, “déjà vu all over again.” That’s because it was only a few short weeks ago that I was debating a bill in this House attempting to amend the Highway Traffic Act to include penalties for drug-impaired driving as part of the government’s Bill 31, Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act.

Those penalties proposed by this government, however, never even actually saw the light of day for third reading. That’s because government members at committee on day 1 of clause-by-clause had, in a bizarre turn of events, voted out a pertinent

section of their own bill that had impacted the sections penalizing drug-impaired driving.

So here we go again, Speaker. When it comes to Bill 31, and now Bill 85’s direction with regard to drug-impaired driving, I will repeat what I said a number of weeks ago. We all agree that those impaired, whether from alcohol or drugs, should not be driving, period. We all agree on that. The fact is that Ontario is one of only three jurisdictions in Canada that currently has no sanctions for drug-impaired driving. So the issue finally being addressed again here allows Ontario motorists to have the protection that the other provinces already benefit from.

We already have laws to deal with the impacts of drunk driving, so this bill proposes to fill the void in Ontario to take on the impact of drugged driving.

Specifically, the bill will allow for someone’s driver’s licence to be suspended for three, seven, 30 or 90 days if a driver fails a roadside test and the police officer, trained in standardized field sobriety testing or as a drug recognition expert, reasonably believes that their ability to drive is impaired, depending on the level of impairment.

We’ve now moved eight years down the road since federal law changes were made to give police new powers to compel suspected drug-impaired drivers to take roadside sobriety tests. While there are a number of technologies out there for testing, whether through a type of breathalyzer or saliva testing, many questions remain with regard to both civil liberties and the actual science behind the procedures.

Question one surrounds the fact that, unlike the 0.08% threshold for blood alcohol concentration, there’s no scientific consensus about how much consumption of certain drugs will cause impairment. Some hold that five nanograms per millilitre of blood should be the limit for cannabis, while others have said it should be 10. Yet even as the debate continues, the fact remains that it’s the responsibility of us as legislators to address issues surrounding drug-impaired driving because of the harms it may cause.

While we know that many of the problems associated with drug-impaired driving are similar to those associated with drunk driving, there is substantial evidence suggesting that the prevalence of drug-impaired driving may be higher than that of alcohol-impaired driving. And while we’re not just talking about marijuana use, there are studies pointing to the fact that driving under the influence of marijuana alone may be more common than drunk driving. That’s a significant concern. According to the Partnership For a Drug-Free Canada, “Cannabis significantly affects the skills necessary for driving.

Cannabis causes euphoria, slowed thinking, confusion, impaired memory and learning, increased heart rate and anxiety. These effects are felt within minutes, peak after about half an hour and can last up to two hours.” They go on to report that “driving while on cannabis demonstrates slowed thinking, which delays reaction time to important events occurring on the road. It also distorts time and distance perception, making it difficult for the driver to navigate turns into oncoming traffic.

Concentration and attention span are also decreased, increasing the likelihood that the driver will be distracted from watching the road. The crash rate of cannabis users can be anywhere from two to six times higher than sober drivers, depending on the duration and quantity of the drug.

“Considerable evidence from both real and simulated driving studies indicates that marijuana can negatively affect a driver’s attentiveness, perception of time and speed, and the ability to draw on information obtained from past experiences.”

The studies continue. I think I saw an ad on the subway the other day calling for volunteer pot smokers between the ages of 17 and 24 who own a driver’s licence to come forward for another study examining the impacts here in the city of Toronto. One of the latest studies from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health estimates that “4% to 12% of motor vehicle deaths or injuries occurred under the influence of cannabis. Based on motor vehicle accident statistics from 2010, this suggests that there were 89 to 267 fatalities, and 6,625 to 20,475 injuries in Canada that year related to cannabis use.” This is a cause for concern.

Beyond marijuana, the drug-impaired driving problem extends much further, to include the use of a wide variety of both legal and illegal drugs, running the gamut from stimulants, depressants, antidepressants, narcotics, hallucinogens and sleeping pills, among other intoxicating substances. So there is little doubt that we need to get a handle on how to address the dire impacts that can result due to any and all types of impaired driving, and yet even as we support the direction toward dealing with the occurrence of drug-impaired driving, we recognize that there will be concerns moving forward.

I remain concerned that with government yet to introduce any reliable scientific testing for drug impairment, the imposition of penalties is left open to question and possible legal challenge. The fact remains that while government has spoken about examining testing procedures in other jurisdictions until some verifiable type of roadside breathalyzer for drugs is proven valid and accurate, we will require further detail, if the legislation moves on to committee, as to how and when a driver is determined to be drug-impaired for the purposes of this legislation.

I know I’ve only got a few minutes left.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Hear, hear.

Mr. Michael Harris: I could go on. I know the member opposite would appreciate that, but I want to note that Bill 85 also calls for regulation of private sector non-emergency stretcher transportation vehicles and their drivers, ensuring that they meet specific requirements with respect to vehicle inspection and maintenance, prescribed qualifications for staff, equipment and record-keeping. That’s contained in this bill. There is no doubt that the safety of our medical transportation services is important, but given the Liberal government’s track record in areas of overseeing medical transportation in the past, we do remain skeptical of government’s ability to regulate those services.

I want to remind folks, as it pertains to this bill, that it was just less than a year ago that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts issued a comprehensive, scathing report after a two-year investigation into the Ornge air ambulance scandal. It’s not entirely surprising that many in this House today are unaware of the report—I encourage them to pick up a copy and over the long weekend, if they’ve not already read it, to please do so—because just as it was about to be released publicly, the Premier called an election, successfully burying what she knew would be a highly critical report.

Much as the McGuinty prorogation saw government attempt to avoid scrutiny for the $1-billion gas plant scandal, the Wynne government headed straight for the exits when they realized the Ornge was about to hit the fan. When the going gets tough, the regime gets going right out the door, where they don’t have to answer our questions.

That said, and even as an ongoing criminal investigation into the Ornge scandal by OPP continues, I thought it’s important to note some of the significant highlights of this report—two years in the making—as it pertains to the

section in the bill relating to patient transfers etc. The report contained 95 specific concerns that relate directly to decisions made at the most senior levels in the Ministry of Health, concerns that include—and I believe the government should hear these, as we speak to these changes made in this bill pertaining to this section. They highlighted in the report:

—the failure of the minister to respond to the repeated warnings about Ornge mismanagement, and health and safety risks;

—an oversight branch for the air ambulance service whose director and staff have no experience in either air or land ambulance;

—deputy ministers ignoring the advice of senior civil servants against proceeding with the Chris Mazza scheme at the very outset;

—instructing the head of the emergency services branch to stand down and take direction from Chris Mazza; and

—the ministry’s failure to exercise even the most basic of oversight responsibilities.

Further, the report exposes Ornge board members for their failure to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities and calls for the government to pursue them—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. On a point of order, the Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m trying to understand the remarks from the member of the PC Party, and I cannot relate them to anything in the bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you for your point of order.

I would ask the member to tie his comments to the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael Harris: If the member gives me a few more minutes, I think by the end of what I’m about to say—

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Harris: If she listens attentively, she will actually understand how I am including these important remarks about the public accounts committee back to Bill 85, because there is, in fact, a regulation—and she’s the minister for the bill and will know this—of private sector non-emergency stretcher transportation vehicles and their drivers, ensuring that they meet specific requirements. That’s exactly how I’m tying this to that, so I encourage her to wait until I’m done and then render a decision, perhaps, on that.

The report—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I don’t think it’s a decision of the Attorney General. It’s a decision of the Speaker. I’m listening very carefully, and I’m actually reading the act, but I’m having trouble also.

Mr. Michael Harris: Okay. Well, I’ve got three pages left, and we’ll figure it out.

Dr. Mazza collected $9.3 million over six years at Ornge, as he created a complex web of for-profit and not-for-profit entities related to the air ambulance service, all under the nose of the Liberal government and then-Health Minister Deb Matthews.

I think we owe the committee—and specifically the former member for Newmarket–Aurora, Mr. Frank Klees—our gratitude for spearheading this investigation and providing a significant report, which we would all benefit from reading and which I encourage members opposite to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would give the member one more warning, and then I’ll move to the next speaker. I would like you to speak to the bill—as it relates to ambulance, what’s in the bill.

Mr. Michael Harris: We owe it to front-line first responders—the pilots, the paramedics—and the dispatchers and administrators of Ornge to make this report public.

Again, Speaker, while oversight of our medical transportation vehicles, as called for in Bill 85, is probably a good idea, given the history with this current government at the wheel, I do have some misgivings. I think that’s fair.

I know my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon wants to chime in on this, so I’d like to thank members for the opportunity to speak today, and, obviously, thank the member for Simcoe North for his thoughts on this wide-ranging proposed legislation.

Speaker, with that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak about the Strengthening and Improving Government Act—I think that’s the latest propaganda title—an Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts. As you know, this is actually a reintroduction of a government bill from the previous Parliament that died on the order paper.

But I specifically want to—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker.

I specifically want to add on to what my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga was referencing, and that was the ambulance non-medical, non-emergency transfers that are under

schedule 7, Ministry of Transportation.

In my community, there is a lot of what you call a non-emergency transfer that occurs. It’s becoming a real issue, because there do not seem to be any standards in place that ensure that the fee or charge is appropriate or consistent.

I actually have very disturbing examples from an emergency room nurse who has told me directly that people are now making decisions that say, “Don’t send my mom or dad”—who is in a long-term-care home—“to the hospital, because I don’t want to pay—or I cannot afford to pay—the fee of the non-emergency transfer” that occurs when they leave the emergency room and go back to the long-term-care home.

I have very, very serious concerns with the fact that we need to take a much closer look at that industry and ensure not only that the staff who are manning these vehicles are appropriately trained, but that there is some comfort and consistency in how the costs are decided upon.

If people are actually making a decision that they do not want their loved one to go to the emergency room because they can’t afford the return trip in that non-medical transfer vehicle, because they don’t have a vehicle that would be appropriate for a wheelchair or the particular circumstances, I think we have a bigger issue than what is specifically referenced in

schedule 7 with the amendments that are being proposed here with Bill 85.

Sometimes we learn about these issues just because we get the calls from the constituency. It had not occurred to me that there would be an inconsistency in the rules—well, let’s be honest; there are no rules. There don’t seem to be any rules as to what cost is appropriate. I would like to see more of that studied, whether it’s through the Ministry of Health, or if we want to do it with

schedule 7 through the Ministry of Transportation, I don’t really care. What I do care about is, I don’t want to be in a position where people are saying no to going to the hospital for specific services that they need; perhaps it’s a physiotherapy session, and they are concerned that they will not be able to afford the charge that happens at the end of the program.

I would urge the government to look at that and come up with a solution where there is an appropriate and easily understood, transparent view for people to see what is covered under the non-emergency transfers and what is the appropriate cost for it. Perhaps it’s a situation where you need to have a maximum fee. We often talk about the very important value we have in our universal health care. Not everything is free, and if the seniors and people on a fixed income in Dufferin–Caledon are being unfairly or unreasonably charged, I think that we as legislators have a responsibility to move forward and try to fix that problem.

Back to Bill 85: It is an omnibus bill that affects 15 different pieces of legislation across eight different ministries. Some are very basic housekeeping issues. Some are—how shall I say this nicely?—repairing or fixing errors that occurred in previous legislation, and some very current actually. Some of the Ministry of Transportation amendments are in Bill 85 now because there was basically a mess-up at committee, and things got removed that should not have been removed. So we have Bill 85 trying to correct that error.

It is a housekeeping bill, but it does very little to strengthen and improve government within our province and certainly anything related to the fiscal—I’m concerned because the Speaker keeps looking at me like I should sit down. I’ll keep going until you tell me to stop.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): No, you have lots of time left.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’d like to spend some time discussing the impacts of Bill 85, specifically as it relates to my responsibility as critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General. Bill 85 amends the Courts of Justice Act to match with federal legislation—the Civil Marriage Act and the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act—and to the list of statutes which the Family Court and Family Rules Committee have jurisdiction over. Basically this will allow clarity on court proceedings for non-residents, same-sex spouses and First Nation matrimonial property laws.

This is basically an update to allow people who do not live in Ontario but were married in Ontario in a same-sex relationship to divorce and separate their assets. In addition, it will allow future federal family legislation to be added to the Family Court and Family Rules Committee’s jurisdiction by regulation.

I’ll give my regulation rant for a moment. Historically and consistently, I have a lot of concerns with how much of the legislation that we see before us is left to what we call “by regulation.” As many members of this chamber know, but I’m not sure the public understands, regulatory changes are something that are not debated or discussed in this chamber. As little as three members of the cabinet—not even the full cabinet—have to look at every single regulation. They can be signed by three cabinet ministers and within days have regulatory changes that have very serious impacts to the people of Ontario. As a general rule, I’m not a big fan of regulations—and I will let the Speaker speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome to the House the parents of page Megan Chan: Rebecca Yu and Johnny Chan. They’re here to see their daughter Megan in action today.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m pleased to introduce the mother and father of page Joshua Osborne. Jennifer Osborne and Dr. Raymond Osborne are with us today.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like Queen’s Park to give a warm welcome to Special Olympics coach Teresa Demytruk, and a special events coordinator with the Special Olympics, Mr. James Montague, both here from Oakville.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to introduce Dietmar Arff, the father of page captain Ryan Arff. He will be in the public gallery this morning—if you are, just give me the wave; if not, wave when you get here.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome Rebecca Horeth, who’s in the gallery today. She’s from Althouse College, the teachers’ college at Western University. Rebecca has been spending two weeks at the Ministry of Education, gaining a better understanding of education policy development. Welcome, Rebecca.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, who’s joined by Chris Watson, also from CUPE. Welcome.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to welcome page Thomas Atkinson’s mother, Cindy Atkinson. Welcome to Queen’s Park. She will be in the public gallery.

M me France Gélinas: He is making his way in: Kent MacNeill from Sudbury. He’s with OECTA and is participating in the rally today.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I just want to reintroduce my nephew Aaron Natyshak, who has been here with me all week, sort of job shadowing. This is his last day here. I had a great time having him here. He learned a lot through his experience, so thank you to all members.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We have five personal support workers here in the gallery today: Theresa Thomas, Ghiti Iravani, Theresa Matteer, Penney Murphy and Hazel John. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize PSW Day on May 19, next week.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m always willing to admit my mistakes. Last round, I missed the formal thank you and we made up for it in the afternoon, but I want to do it now to make sure that I don’t forget it, because we have a vote after—and that is to say that it is the last day for our pages. We want to thank our pages for the wonderful work that they’ve done in this House.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I take it, by that, that you would like to have them come back on Monday?

Order and decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This morning indicated to me that we could be boisterous to a certain degree. All I’m going to ask is that our energy be positive. I seek co-operation from the House on the issue that I’ve spoken to before, and that is, when I stand, we need quiet, and no one throws in shots as I’m sitting. I will still be strict on that one. Thank you for your co-operation.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Durham students have now been out of school for 19 days. That’s the longest teachers’ strike in over 25 years. That’s the longest students have been out of a classroom in over 25 years.

Deputy Premier, your government has brought this upon itself with a bargaining process that is being described as flawed and dysfunctional. The onus is on your government to get these students back in the classroom where they belong before they lose their year. Will you do that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I’ve said many times, we agree that the students need to be back in class. We want the students to be back in class, and I agree, they have been out for a distressingly long time. But we also know that the only way that we’re going to get them back in class is if we negotiate. We need to have a negotiated settlement, so we are certainly prepared to be at the table and to stay at the table.

I know the school board associations are prepared; I would certainly hope that the unions will be prepared to get back to the table, because the only way we are going to resolve this is through negotiation, Speaker. We know that we have to get a collective agreement. That will end the strikes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Deputy Premier: Students want to be back in the classroom. Teachers want to be back in the classroom. Parents want their children back in the classroom.

If the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s decision is appealed, high school students may be out of the classroom for weeks on end. We’re hearing that students at one Durham high school have been told to clean out their lockers because they’re not expected to be back in the classroom before the end of the school year. Durham College has said that if these students don’t graduate by August 22, they cannot offer them admission for next year.

Deputy Premier, these students’ futures and their careers are at very serious risk. Get the deal done. Get these students back into the classroom and graduating next month as they should be.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very concerned if that’s the information that is being relayed by the party opposite to students and their families because, as things have unfolded, at the moment—

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: —my message has been that we fully expect that the kids will be back in the classroom because we expect to succeed with getting a collective agreement.

It’s very important that what students are doing right now is making sure that whatever work they can do to keep up their courses—if they have assignments and projects that they know will be required for the end of the semester, they should be doing them right now.

In fact I know that the Durham board, the Rainbow board and the Peel board all have Internet course resources on their websites. I would encourage students and parents to make sure the students go to those websites and they do—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Acting Premier: The Premier and this education minister have made no progress on any of the three boards where the teachers are currently on strike. OSSTF is in a position to call strikes in four more boards: Halton, Lakehead, Waterloo and Ottawa-Carleton. Thousands more students could be out of the classroom before the end of the school year. Thousands more students could lose their school year entirely, and their graduation.

Deputy Premier, get the Premier to use those mediation skills she so often talks about, get the parties back to the table and get the job done and the students back in the classroom.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to remind the member opposite that I am not at the Durham table. I am not at the Rainbow table. I am not at the Peel table. I am at the central table and that is where we’re working very hard. But I’m really not going to take a lesson from the people who said that they were going to fire 22,700 education workers and teachers. They were asked during the last campaign: “Will it mean fewer teachers?” And their leader said, “It does. It will mean fewer teachers in our system.”

If that’s how they thought they were going to do labour relations, believe me, that wasn’t going to get you labour peace. We know that the way to do labour peace—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I repeat: We are ready and willing to negotiate at the central table. I remain committed to that. The Premier remains committed to that. Negotiation is the solution.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is also to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, 60% of Durham College students come from the Durham region. As you are well aware, Durham grade 12 students have been out of the classroom for four weeks. Their graduation is at risk. Durham College has said that they can’t admit students who haven’t graduated by August 22.

Deputy Premier, will you promise these students that they will graduate this year?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I’ve explained before, I’ve met with Colleges Ontario. I’ve met with COU, the Council of Ontario Universities. We’ve met with the application centres and—

Mr. Steve Clark: August 22.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. Liz Sandals: What we know is that—

Mr. Steve Clark: Durham College, August 22.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Rather than heckling, I would have thought you might actually want the information that was helpful to the students and the parents who are out there worrying about this.

We have the commitment from the colleges and universities that we will work together because we know that we need to find solutions to make sure that these students can get into the colleges and the universities. We will certainly work together to make sure—

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —that there are solutions—

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

Minister, it’s about three times now. When I stand, you sit down. You do not finish. Your time is up.

Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the Deputy Premier: 22,000 Durham students are out of the classroom right now. Today is their 19th day. Next week is a constituency week and there will be no question period or accountability. No negotiation or bargaining is taking place. We know, and I think you know now, that Bill 122, the two-tier bargaining, is a complete failure.

Minister, we need this dithering to stop. We need leadership. What action do you propose next week that will guarantee that Durham students will be back in the classroom?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no. The minister already has the floor. Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Sorry. First off, let’s just follow up on Durham College. Durham College has already announced—not a ministry direction—to Durham students that Durham will be accepting students based on the mid-term marks that were already submitted. So in fact the issue that has been raised by the member opposite—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: In fact, Durham College has already made the decision that they will accept the mid-term marks, and there is absolutely no problem.

One of the things that we have—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont, second time.

Answer?

Hon. Liz Sandals: One of the things we’ve noticed is parents being uncertain about putting down deposits. I want to encourage parents to get—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: It’s back to the Deputy Premier, I guess through the Minister of Education: With 72,000 secondary students out of the classroom, you continually finger point the problem at someone else.

The two-tiered bargaining system simply is not working. We all know that; all sides know that. It is a failure, and the victims now are the 72,000 students. It is your Bill 122, it is your two-tiered system that is putting the education system in chaos.

Being mystified or perplexed is not enough. We need leadership, not dithering. Will you promise that the 72,000 students will graduate and not be left disadvantaged when they attend college or university this coming fall?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think we need to go back and think about how we arrived at Bill 122. We negotiated. We consulted. We talked to all four trustee associations. We talked to the directors. We talked to all the unions. We went through this process of drafting and consulting and redrafting and consulting.

Through all that process of working with all the partners who are concerned with collective bargaining in the education sector, this party remained obstinately opposed to having any

part in that negotiation, in that discussion, in that consultation. They just kept saying “No, no, no.” Well, I’m really not surprised that the member doesn’t like the legislation; they all voted against it in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There already are three people very close.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. History is being made in Ontario today. Ontario’s independent watchdogs have written to the Premier saying that her Hydro One sell-off is unacceptable and undemocratic. That’s historic. It shows just how arrogant this government has become.

The Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Financial Accountability Officer, the privacy commissioner, the Integrity Commissioner and the French Language Services Commissioner: All are calling on the provincial government to reverse plans in the budget bill. Will the Liberals listen to Ontario’s non-partisan, independent officers and reverse their plan to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say we welcome the dialogue that’s happening across this province about our plan to build more infrastructure and broaden the ownership of Hydro One.

Let me be clear: Publicly traded companies have different oversight mechanisms than provincially owned assets, but there are still oversight mechanisms—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that this was a decision we did not come to lightly. We have very carefully weighed the public interest, and we are convinced that the public interest is met by retaining regulation of the energy industry, but broadening the ownership so we can build badly needed infrastructure across this province—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Kevin O’Leary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay, second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That’s why we’re doing this: to build the infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government is becoming more undemocratic by the day, and Ontario’s non-partisan, independent watchdogs are calling the government out.

The Liberals have made it clear they don’t respect our independent officers. Well, I can tell you that New Democrats do respect them.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: These officers have legislated authority to hold governments, provincial agencies and corporations accountable. Why are the Liberals taking a page—

Hon. Brad Duguid: Don’t have the courage to build infrastructure.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —out of the Stephen Harper playbook by shutting down our independent officers and slamming the door on democracy and accountability?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Just a reminder to the leader of the third party about our commitment—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s not very progressive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our commitment to independent officers of the Legislature is stronger than any government in recent memory.

Let’s just review: We actually created the new Financial Accountability Officer. We created the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. We made the French Language Services Commissioner independent. We expanded the Ombudsman role to include municipalities, school boards and publicly funded universities. The Integrity Commissioner now has strengthened oversight of lobbyist rules and government expenses. There are new, tougher rules for the Information and Privacy Commissioner when it comes to offences.

We are the party that has expanded the number of independent officers and expanded the roles—

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario’s watchdogs are independent, and they are non-partisan. Their job is to tell the hard truth, no matter what party is in power. The Liberals are trying to muzzle those watchdogs because they want to keep the Hydro One sell-off and Hydro One going forward secret and under wraps so that the people of this province have no idea what the heck is going on in that corporation.

Ontarians—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure is warned.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve accountability. Ontarians deserve transparency in their most important utility.

Will the Liberals stop trying to muzzle the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Financial Accountability Officer, the privacy commissioner, the Integrity Commissioner and the French Languages Services Commissioner and stop the sell-off of Hydro One today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I don’t think anybody’s trying to muzzle anyone. The independent officers of the Legislature have indicated their thoughts and we welcome that.

We are also delighted that Denis Desautels, the former Auditor General of Canada, has now indicated that he will ensure fairness throughout the IPO process. That is a very important role and we are delighted that Denis Desautels has agreed to take on this important responsibility because we agree with the third party. We agree that Ontarians demand that there be oversight and that there be a fair and transparent process.

The member opposite has been talking about the impact on rates. They also know full well that the rates have always been, and will continue to be, set by the Ontario Energy Board. It’s—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. Not only is this government muzzling the independent officers of the House, they’re also muzzling Ontarians. Ontarians have less than five hours to get their names on the list to have their say on Hydro One for only four meager days of hearings here in Toronto.

We’ve seen tens of thousands of people, of all political stripes, from all walks of life, who want to send the Liberals a message that they don’t want to have to pay for the Liberals’ sell-off of Hydro One. They don’t want to be the ones left paying the price for this wrong decision.

The question is: Why are the Liberals shutting out the people of Ontario who actually own Hydro One? Why are they not allowing hearings to happen around this province? Why are they muzzling Ontarians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m going to disagree with the premise of the question posed by the leader of the third party. In fact, what we are doing is we are enhancing the public’s input into our budget process by ensuring that there are six days of committee consideration into the budget by holding hearings at Queen’s Park.

The member opposite knows that these six days are three times more than the number of days that have been used by all three political parties who’ve been in government over the last 25 years in this province when it comes to the consideration of the budget. In fact, I remind the member opposite that when her party was in government, in two out of four budgets they tabled, they only allowed one day each for budget consideration, and for the last two budgets, in 1993 and 1994, they allowed for zero days of budget consideration when they were discussing things like the social contract—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier knows that there are people from London, from Etobicoke, from Peel, from Sudbury, from Thunder Bay, from Oakville, from Barrie, from Cambridge and from communities across this province who don’t want to pay the price for the Hydro One sell-off. They can’t afford higher hydro bills. Every Liberal MPP knows this because they’ve been getting those emails—tens of thousands of people.

Are Liberal backbenchers going to go back home to their constituencies next week, to their ridings, and tell their constituents why it is that they are going to be the ones who are going to pay the price for this Hydro sell-off, and yet they have no interest whatsoever in hearing their opinion or what they have to say?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I can tell you what our constituents are talking about. Our constituents are talking about the need for public infrastructure in our communities. What our constituents want is to put an end to gridlock and congestion on our highways so that they can get to work in an expedient way and home in a timely fashion so they can spend time with their families. The only thing that the NDP is trying to do is block that kind of progress, because we need to pass this budget in order to have programs that will help to fund our infrastructure, to reduce our auto rates and, of course, to ensure that we have retirement income security through a new pension plan.

What the NDP is suggesting through the leader of the third party is nothing but stalling tactics. They do not want progress—that will help ease the lives of Ontarians—by ensuring that this budget does not pass.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families and businesses cannot afford to pay the price for the Premier’s wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One. But Ontarians have less than five hours to get their names on the list to be heard at the public hearings. They can call 416-325-3526 or they can email kkoch@ola.org to get on the list and tell the Liberals what they think of Hydro One. The number again: 416-325-3526 or kkoch@ola.org. The Premier is trying to shut people down, Speaker. She’s hunkering down here in Toronto—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She’s hunkering down here in Toronto, making it as difficult as she possibly can for the people outside of Toronto to be heard in this process.

When will the Premier, when will the Liberal government, start listening to the people of this province, the people across Ontario, and stop this wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, we are listening to Ontarians, and Ontarians are telling us every single day—and not only us, but all members of this Legislature—that they want us to invest in our infrastructure. They want us to build roads and bridges in our communities. They want us to make sure that we have good public transit and transportation. There is no more time for inaction when it comes to building 21st-century infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

The only thing the NDP is interested in, the only thing the NDP wants to do is block this budget so those investments are not made in our communities. That is unacceptable, Speaker. We want this budget passed so that we not only build critical infrastructure in our communities across the province but also reduce our auto premium rates and also ensure retirement income security for Ontarians.

Nurses

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Deputy Premier. As we begin to celebrate Nursing Week in Ontario, there are more than 1,000 nurses who are not celebrating. You are firing nurses at hospitals right across the province. We all, here in this House, have examples. In my hometown of North Bay, you have fired 94 full-time health care workers, including 54 RPNs, and you fired 34 part-time workers, including 14 RPNs.

Tomorrow I’m at our hospital’s Take Your MPP to Work event. Deputy, what should I tell the remaining nurses who fear you’ll be firing them next?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: One of the things you can tell them is that there are 24,000 more nurses working in this province than were working here 10 years ago. In fact, you can also tell them that more than 3,500 nurses were added in 2013 and a similar number in 2014.

You can tell them that we’ve worked hard to increase the proportion of nurses working full-time in the past decade. We’ve increased the percentage of nurses in this province working full time by 14%. You can tell them that we’ve had more than 18,000 new nursing graduates go through our nursing graduate guarantee, getting them that first experience in the workplace. You can tell them about the late career nursing initiative; more than 20,000 experienced nurses have been provided with the opportunity to benefit from that program and work in less physically demanding circumstances in hospital and other environments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Deputy, nobody believes any of the numbers you ever tell us. You’re the same people who told us the gas plant cancellation would cost $40 million—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Someone’s edgy. I’m standing.

Please finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you.

These are the same people who said the gas plant scandal would cost $40 million when it’s over $1 billion. You say you’re hiring nurses—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —but you’re actually firing nurses. In New Liskeard, 18,000 hours of nursing care were cut. In Timmins, 40 front-line health care workers were fired. In the Soo—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you were too busy heckling to hear me say it the first time.

Please finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: In the Soo, 12,500 hours of nursing care are gone. All beds in Penetanguishene hospital are closed. Quinte lost 58 RNs. Cuts in Scarborough, Petrolia, Stratford, Seaforth, Clinton—the list goes on.

Deputy, why do you continue to say one thing when the exact opposite is the truth?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I find it unbelievable that the member opposite is speaking this way because the way that they would have chosen to get to balance was by firing thousands of health care workers and thousands of nurses across this province. I find it unbelievable to hear this coming from a party that referred to our nurses as obsolete hula hoops.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That party referred to our professional nurses around this province as obsolete hula hoops.

We know that your plan to get back to balance was to cut 100,000 jobs. We know many of those jobs would have come from our nurses.

In fact, yesterday I had the privilege of announcing changes to home and community care across this province, which includes substantial new investments in nurses and nursing hours to benefit people living in the home and community environment.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Hundreds of teachers are rallied outside—actually, thousands and thousands of teachers are rallied outside—to tell the government to stop sitting on the sidelines of negotiations. Tens of thousands of students are out of class and wondering if the school year is lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut from our already-underfunded education system. Our schools have been thrown into chaos. Contrary to Liberal spin, Ontarians know that the government holds ultimate responsibility over education in this province.

Why is this Liberal government forcing students and families to pay the price for their reckless cuts and their neglect on the education file?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m not sure what school system you’re talking about, but the one I want to talk about is the one where we’ve made major investments in our school system.

They keep saying that we cut special education. I’d like to tell you something about special education funding, Speaker. Let’s have a little bit of actual information. We have increased special education spending by $1.1 billion, up to $2.72 billion. That is a 68% increase in special education spending. Do you know how much that is in comparison to the cost of living? That’s about triple the increase in the cost of living, Speaker. So I’m not going to take any lessons from these people, who actually campaigned—campaigned—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Instead of lighting a fire under negotiations, the Premier and her government are playing the blame game—blame the teachers, blame the school boards—but never admitting their government is failing families across this province. The Minister of Education, this minister, is sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing while the process is being circumvented.

Will the Deputy Premier and her government stop sitting on the sidelines and get up and start making sure that students get back into the classroom, where they belong?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I really would like to know exactly what it is she’s proposing. However, I can say two things.

Number one, we are at the central table, willing to negotiate with any of our partners who would like to be there.

But what I would also like to talk about, because she keeps saying we’ve got the education system in chaos—I talked to you about the special education funding. One of the things we’ve been able to do with that special education funding, Speaker, is actually look at what our special education students are able to achieve. When we use the EQAO results to track our special education students, we find that the grade 3 writing scores for our grade 3 special education students have gone up 39%. What that tells me is that—

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

New question.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

I’m going to warn the minister: It has been four times now where I stand and you continue. You’re warned.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Throw her out.

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

Youth services / Services à la jeunesse

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services à l’enfance et à la jeunesse.

May 14 marks Children and Youth in Care Day, an opportunity to recognize the resilience and strength demonstrated by young people in the care of the province. As someone who began her career as a social worker working at the children’s aid society, I understand that the most important action we can take for children, and especially youth in the care of the province, is to give them a strong foundation for a bright future.

Nous savons que la plus importante action que nous pouvons prendre pour les enfants, et spécialement les jeunes qui sont pris en charge par la province, est de leur donner une base solide pour un avenir meilleur.

In order to help mark this special day, can the government inform this House on ways in which it is continuing to help youth who have been in care reach their full potential?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to acknowledge the MPP from Ottawa–Orléans for her question and the work she has done in child welfare. Thank you so much.

I just want to add, Speaker, that a number of us this morning were at a celebration of Children and Youth in Care Day with our provincial advocate and the foundation of the children’s aid societies. I was there with both my critics, and MPP Wong as well, who actually put forth the motion, the private member’s business, to create Children and Youth in Care Day.

We know that by supporting youth leaving the care of the province during their late teens and their twenties, we’re focusing on their education and well-being. We have a lot of new programs and services to help youth transitioning into adulthood, and we’ve increased the minimum financial support for these youth to $850 a month.

We know there’s more to do, but we—

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

Supplementary?

M me Marie-France Lalonde: J’aimerais remercier la ministre pour sa réponse.

I’m glad to hear that our government is taking the voices of youth and children in care into account and helping them transition into adulthood. The foundation of success is education, and it is therefore crucial to make sure youth leaving care can access the programs and training they need.

Could the government highlight some of the ways it is helping youth leaving care get the education they need to lead successful adult lives?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Our government is focusing on ensuring that youth transitioning from care get a great opportunity for education and success. We provide $2,000 a semester to youth formerly in care who are enrolled in OSAP-eligible post-secondary training programs. We also cover up to 50% of tuition for more young people, thanks to expanded grant eligibility, and we partner with 30 post-secondary educational institutions to cover full tuition for crown wards in Ontario and youth formerly in care.

We know that education is key to a prosperous future for all young people, so we’ll continue to make education services and programs accessible for all youth, particularly the youth who are leaving our care.

Sexual harassment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Do the justices of the peace you appoint have a code of conduct they are expected to follow?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, indeed, the justices of peace, the judges, have a code of conduct to follow, and they are held to the highest manner of discipline that the position calls for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would suggest to you it needs updating.

Your Premier posted on Twitter: “Whether or not it’s caught on film, sexual harassment at work is no joke.” We agree.

Hydro One fired Shawn Simoes less than a day after he made sexual comments to Shauna Hunt, so why did it take you five years, two separate convictions and multiple women having to come forward on sexual harassment for you to fire Errol Massiah as a justice of the peace?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, I’m getting quiet.

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the justices of the peace are held to a very important level of discipline—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin-Caledon.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: If people have a concern about what they’re doing, they should put in a complaint against them.

There is a committee that is very independent from the government that reviews the situation and then brings about recommendations for the action that we should be taking.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, second time.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It’s very important that the public knows that they can trust the process, that the review of the discipline of the situation is—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today, legal experts released an opinion that says that Liberal plans to sell off Hydro One will end public control of the company. Those experts say the budget bill makes it clear the government’s “true intent is to relinquish control and stewardship of the electricity market. The provision for the purported retention of 40% public ownership is essentially a marketing ploy for legislative reforms that will certainly abandon public control of Hydro One.”

Does the Deputy Premier think that anyone believes her marketing ploy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of the oversight mechanisms that will be in place when Hydro One becomes a publicly traded company.

We are absolutely committed to doing what is in the public interest, and when it comes to hydro rates, the Ontario Energy Board will continue, as it does now, in the future to set those rates as it does for other energy companies.

We are committed to selling no more than 60% of the company, and we are ensuring that major decisions made by Hydro One will require a two-thirds vote, giving us de facto control of the company. We will have the ability to fire the whole board of directors, and we will nominate 40% of the board of directors. So we are finding that right balance, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Liberals’ marketing ploy on the Hydro One sell-off is all based on keeping a minority 40% stake. But the experts are clear: There is nothing to prevent private investors from outvoting the government. They say, “Even if a 40% stake is preserved, effective control can shift to the private sector.” Those same experts confirm that Ontario could end up with well under 10% in public hands. The government is trying to sell Hydro One to the bankers, and they’re trying to sell Ontarians a pig in a poke.

Will the government stop the sell-off today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we are committing to build the infrastructure that this province so badly needs. The party opposite might think that there’s some other pot of money under the rainbow we can build the infrastructure with, but I tell you, Speaker, on this side we know that infrastructure costs money, as did the NDP during the last election.

We are looking carefully at the assets we already have that we can put to better use by building the assets of infrastructure. We’re committed to improving the infrastructure in the province. We will use the resources of the people of Ontario, whether it’s buildings that we don’t need to own, whether it’s land we don’t need to own or whether it’s a share in Hydro One. We’re putting our assets to work on the priorities of the people of this province.

Employment standards

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Earlier this week, there was a font-page story in the Toronto Star about the rise of temporary work in the GTA and what that means for today’s economy. It’s clear from that and other signals that our economy has evolved significantly over the last number of years. It’s clear that workplaces are having to adapt to this, and employees are having to adapt to this new economy as well.

Minister, could you share with us what our government is doing to ensure workplace laws keep up with this evolving economy?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the honourable member for that excellent question. The government recognizes that Ontario’s labour relations and employment standards laws should keep up with the changing economy. In fact, in the mandate letter I received from the Premier last year, the Premier asked that I undertake a review of Ontario’s changing workplaces with a view to ensuring that our labour laws and our employment standards do indeed meet the needs of our modern economy. In that regard, we’ve appointed two excellent special advisers, labour lawyer Michael Mitchell and former justice John C. Murray, both of whom have excellent reputations and some expertise in labour law.

The advisers will conduct broad consultations across the province with respect to the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act. They’re going to consider the findings from these consultations when they make the final recommendations to me.

Speaker, I look forward to sharing more in the supplementary about the process as it unfolds.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Minister, you mentioned that Justice Murray and Mr. Mitchell will be conducting broad consultations across the province. I know you announced the appointment of the advisers in February, but I’m sure there are many members of the public who are eager to know when and how they can provide input. Workers and employers alike in almost every corner of this province have expressed interest in sharing their thoughts, but as MPPs, we have not yet been able to direct them as to how they can share their perspective.

Minister, could you please give the members of this House and the public an idea of when they can expect those consultations to get under way?

Members should also note that if groups or individuals, for some reason, cannot make it to a hearing near them to give oral testimony, they can offer written submissions via email to the ministry. Information is available on the ministry’s website, along with a guide to the consultations. It’s going to outline the process for the submissions to all the interested parties. The Changing Workplaces Review will help ensure that our labour relations laws keep up with the modern economy.

Public safety

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, your government is allowing the OPP helicopter base in Sudbury to be shut down. This helicopter has been providing vital search and rescue services for the north, First Nations and the northern part of Parry Sound district since 1991. Sudbury enjoys good weather for flying most of the year, while the Orillia base is in the snowbelt and experiences lake-effect weather conditions.

Minister, why are you lowering the capabilities at the OPP to support front-line officers and provide search-and-rescue operations in the north?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for asking this important question. As the member may recall, I have spoken on this issue before in the House when a question was asked by the member from Sudbury, who I am working very closely with on this very important issue.

I want to start by saying that I’m sure the member opposite knows very well that when it comes to decisions that are operational in nature, like a decision made by the OPP as to where to locate their various assets—that’s an operational decision. That’s a decision that is made by the OPP. That’s a decision that is, of course, taken at the behest of the commissioner of the OPP. There’s little, if any, influence that is exerted by the government. We need to be mindful of that.

Our number one priority is the safety and security of every Ontarian, which is extremely important. We need to make sure that all the responsibilities and the mandate that is laid out in the Police Services Act is available, and I’ll add more in—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, you’re the minister responsible for the OPP.

Just this past Sunday, the Orillia-based helicopter was called to find two lost hikers in Sudbury. When the emergency call came in, they couldn’t fly out because of poor weather. Luckily, the Sudbury-based helicopter that was on duty in the north was able to return before dark to locate the hikers. This case demonstrates how safety standards in the north will be negatively affected by the closure of the Sudbury base.

Minister, will you commit to doing whatever you can to ensure an OPP helicopter remains based in the north?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I thank the member opposite, and I want to restate that our number one priority is the safety and security of every Ontarian. Given that the question has been raised about this locally, I have asked my Deputy Minister of Community Safety for more information about this decision. It is important to have the necessary information about how Sudbury and the north are served by aircraft in search-and-rescue operations and how this decision may impact service across the north.

The OPP are mandated to provide certain police services across the province, including aviation support. Of course, they have a responsibility to communicate their decisions effectively so that all communities in Ontario get the information they need to feel safe.

I also want to add that the OPP works very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and continues to use ministry aircraft based in Dryden, Thunder Bay, Timmins, Muskoka and Sudbury. I will continue to work closely with the members on this issue.

Nurses

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday we learned that more nurses are losing their jobs. This time, it’s at CHEO, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. The government promised that health care would not shoulder the brunt of their austerity agenda. Clearly, though, it’s our front-line nurses who are taking the biggest hit.

Losing a nurse is never good, but losing 27 pediatric nursing positions at CHEO, which cares for some of the sickest children in our province, is just plain wrong. Does this government austerity agenda know no bounds?

How does the minister feel to be balancing the province’s budget on the backs of some of the sickest children in this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Perhaps, unlike the member opposite, I trust the professionals who work in our hospitals, and I trust the professionals who work in our LHINs, who make those difficult decisions, so that they can ensure that the highest quality of care is provided to Ontarians wherever they may live, whatever age they might be.

I think she understands that we’re also in an important transitional period, because when that announcement was being made yesterday, I was making an announcement which would result in a dramatic increase in the number of nurses working in the home and community sector. As we’re providing care for individuals and their families closer to home, in their communities, where they want to see that care, where they can be surrounded by their loved ones, where evidence shows that we can care for them effectively—as that transition takes place, we do need to adjust, from time to time, in terms of the funding levels and how we deploy our nurses and other health professionals around the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, 27 full-time equivalent pediatric nursing positions are being cut at CHEO.

Since January 2015, ONA has told us that over 400 full-time-equivalent nursing positions have been cut—the equivalent of close to 800,000 hours of quality RN care cut.

Our most vulnerable deserve more nursing hours, not less. The scientific evidence is clear for everybody to see: Every nurse being cut out of our hospitals puts patient care and patients’ lives at risk.

Speaker, this government chose a very, very sad way to ring in Nursing Week, by cutting pediatric nurses at CHEO.

My question is simple: How many more nursing positions will be cut from our Ontario hospitals?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite is a health care professional, as I am. She understands that when a position in one part of the hospital goes away and emerges in another program in another part of the hospital, that actually results, in the near term, in a reduction in one position and that position being added elsewhere in the hospital.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s the net that matters.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s that net figure that matters most.

I was at CHEO recently, making an announcement for a brand new pediatric chronic pain clinic at that hospital that will result in a significant number of new positions.

Similarly, at the Ottawa Hospital right now, there are active positions for 50 new nurses—50 RNs—that need to be employed at Ottawa Hospital.

So we are making those investments. There is an ebb and flow.

I trust our health care professionals in our hospitals, in our LHINs around this province and in Ottawa to make the right decisions for our patients.

Police services

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Ma question s’adresse au ministre de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels.

This week, we are celebrating Police Week in Ontario, an opportunity to honour and recognize the bravery and sacrifice of the men and women from across our province whose life-saving actions keep us safe.

In my community of Burlington, we are fortunate to be ably served by the women and men of the Halton Regional Police Service, whose civilian and sworn officers do an outstanding job in each of Halton’s communities.

My late husband was a police officer who served 24 years, first with the Toronto Police Service and then the Ontario Provincial Police, in seven communities across our province. As a result, I have a special appreciation of the important role that police officers play on the front lines every day. Whether they are delivering safety and awareness programs in our schools, attending the scene of a collision, investigating criminal activities or working to prevent serious crime, police officers play a critical role in keeping Ontarians safe.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please inform the Legislature what we are doing this week to honour the work of Ontario’s police officers?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Burlington for her question and thank her for her passion for public and community safety. As she mentioned, she’s part of a police family, as I am. My grandfather was a police officer. I share her passion, and I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of community and public safety.

Speaker, each and every day, we are thankful for the hard work and dedication Ontario’s police officers show in keeping our communities safe, but this week we are especially thankful to the men and women of our police services, because it is Police Week in Ontario.

Tomorrow is Peace Officers Memorial Day, which is recognized across the world.

It’s my privilege to recognize and thank our police officers, along with all the members of the Legislature, for protecting us from harm.

The theme of this year’s Police Week is “Discover Policing.” Police services across the province have been promoting the profession of policing to the communities they serve and encouraging the public to learn more about their jobs. Our government is proud of the work they do and the partnership we have with our police officers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Clearly, our police community is a passion we both share. I appreciate your commitment to honouring the service of the police officers who work hard to keep our communities safe.

Since 2003, Ontario’s crime rate has dropped by 36% and Ontario’s violent crime rate has dropped by 27%. In fact, Ontario has had the lowest crime rate of any province and territory every year since 2004. We owe a great deal of this progress to our police services.

As we honour them and as we honour their work during Police Week, it is important to reflect on the work that the government can do to help make Ontario even safer. Moving forward, it is important that we work together to develop solutions that will help to address the root causes of crime and other social issues.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain how he plans to build even safer communities across Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As we dedicate this week to honouring the commitment of our police forces to keep us safe, it is important that we look at ways in which we are working to build even stronger communities across the province.

We have worked hard to build safer communities. Now we must work smarter to make our communities even safer. Our Strategy for a Safer Ontario is focused on finding smarter and more effective ways to build safer communities across our great province. We are forming collaborative partnerships that include police and other key stakeholders, such as education and mental health and addiction specialists. This is about bringing more people to the table to address the issues that confront our communities at their root cause. This will ultimately help make our communities safer, and our police officers safer as well.

Speaker, collaboration and partnership is key in order for us to make decisions around our community safety in a smarter way.

I also want to encourage people, as we celebrate the May Two-Four weekend, to be safe and drive safely as well.

Pesticides

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Minister, I invite you to join me to acknowledge local success. Specifically, the 2014 Provincial Apiarist Annual Report produced by your government says, “Protective measures brought in by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency contributed to a 70% decline of in season bee mortality during the 2014 corn and soybean planting season.”

Considering the success of actions taken by Ontario farmers and Ontario industry, why won’t you listen to reports coming from both the Ontario and federal governments, and why are you so intent to rush through regulations that will devastate Ontario farmers?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As the member may know, we had over a 34% loss in bees this year.

The US Department of Agriculture just reported record