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

October 22, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-22 (PDF)

L110 - Thu 22 Oct 2015 / Jeu 22 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 22 October 2015 Jeudi 22 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

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

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Visitors

Anniversary of shootings in Ottawa / Anniversaire de la fusillade à Ottawa

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Nurses

Probation services

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Government accountability

Access to justice

Social Assistance Management System

Automotive industry

Housing Services Corp.

Diagnostic services

Research and innovation

Social Assistance Management System

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Richard Pigeau

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Energy policies

Ojibway Prairie Complex

Anniversary of shootings in Ottawa

Local Government Week

Tender fruit industry

Community Health and Wellbeing Week

Small Business Week

FoodShare Toronto

Immigrants

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Motions

Estimates

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Road safety

Petitions

Water fluoridation

Hospital funding

Protection de l’environnement

Energy policies

Air-rail link

Lung health

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Disability Support Program

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Private Members’ Public Business

Pathways to Post-secondary Excellence Act (Post-secondary Educational Report), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les voies de l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire (rapport sur l’enseignement postsecondaire)

Police carding practices

Tree planting

Pathways to Post-secondary Excellence Act (Post-secondary Educational Report), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les voies de l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire (rapport sur l’enseignement postsecondaire)

Police carding practices

Tree planting

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 21, 2015, on the amendment to the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d’énergie et la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I can’t say it is a pleasure for me to speak on this government closure motion. I remember very clearly last summer when we sat here and listened to the throne speech, and this government used this term—I’ll remember it for the rest of my life. They said they would choose “partnership over partisanship.” That’s what they said they would do. Time after time after time this government has rammed through pieces of legislation because they don’t want the opposition’s voices to be heard and they don’t want the voices of Ontarians to be heard.

This is the 13th bill—the 13th bill—that this government has time-allocated. Bill 112 has only had three members from my caucus have comments on the record: Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. McNaughton—

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: You know what? If the Minister of Municipal Affairs wants to speak, I’m sure there’s lots of time on the government’s 40 minutes for him to speak. Let me have my time.

Three members have spoken; 24 members of the opposition have not spoken to this bill. I think the reason they don’t want to take an energy bill on the road is because they don’t want to hear from Ontarians. They don’t want to hear from Ontarians on their November 1 increase of hydro rates for Ontarians. They don’t want to hear from Ontarians about their disastrous plan to sell off Hydro One.

But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the member for St. Catharines, the member of the Legislature who has the most experience. Let’s have on the record some of his words about closure motions. I’m going to quote from Minister Bradley from November 24, 1993. This is what Jim Bradley, the member for St. Catharines, said that day: “I’m concerned about the closure motions because I think they limit legitimate debate. I recognize that a government ultimately might have the opportunity to close down a debate that’s been going on a very long period of time.

But as I’ve indicated to the House in days gone by, the purpose of these debates is to canvass public opinion, to make the public aware of what is happening.”

He goes on to say: “All of us have experienced the situation where we have encountered our constituents and they’ve said, ‘What is this particular bill all about?’ or ‘How did this bill get passed and I didn’t know anything about it?’ They are legitimate questions. One of the reasons is that the bills tend to get passed very rapidly in this House.”

This is what the government is trying to do. They’re trying to ram through this bill. They don’t want substantive public hearings across the province; they don’t want to hear from the opposition members or Ontarians about their energy policy. That’s why they’ve put this time allocation motion, that’s why they’re stifling debate, and it has to stop, Speaker. It has to stop today.

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

M me France Gélinas: I guess what I have to say is very much in line with what the previous speaker had to say when it comes to time allocation motions. When we get elected, we get elected to bring the views of the people we represent. Ontario is a big province—we’re talking over 13.5 million people—and many of them have many differing views about the topic. I will be speaking about the people of Nickel Belt. These are the people I am here to represent.

When it comes to Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, we’re really talking about two pieces of legislation that have been put together. The first piece of legislation has to do with the regulation of energy consumers. Basically, what we are trying to regulate with the first part of the bill is the door-to-door marketing of energy contracts.

I can tell you that this practice is very alive and well in Nickel Belt. Every couple of months they will target a different area of my riding, and then the phone calls start coming in. The problem is the delay between the time when they sign the contract and the time when they realize that they have been taken. What they were sold at the door was not at all what ended up being on their energy bill. By the time they make their way to my office, it is often really, really hard to help them. Don’t get me wrong: We have done enough of them that we know where to call and we know what to do, and we get some of them out of those contracts. But for some of them it is too late.

The patterns are always the same. The way this business is conducted is that they will go and target a neighbourhood. They will knock at the door, and somebody who doesn’t know what is happening opens the door. They engage in a conversation, they ask to see their energy bill and then they basically make it sound like what they are selling them is so good—that it is bulletproof, that it will save them money—that all they have to do is sign on the dotted line and then they will be fine.

I can tell you that I have dozens of families on Mattagami First Nation that have been targeted by this, that have signed those contracts and that are now paying energy bills that are out of this world. Fortunately, a few of them came to see me right away, and we were able to get them out of those contracts, but for some of them—I don’t want to paint them all with the same brush, but they tend to be the elders. They tend to be people who are more trustworthy. They’ve lived their whole lives with, when they say something, this is what they mean, and you can hold them to their word.

So when somebody comes to their door and tells them something, they assume that the person on the other side of the door is just as trustworthy as they are, but they are not. Now they are stuck with those bills that make no sense. There’s very little we can do to get them out of those contracts.

Mattagami was an area that was targeted in my riding. They also targeted the valley. They targeted neighbourhoods within Chelmsford. They targeted neighbourhoods within Azilda. You can see, by the type of neighbourhoods where they put in most of their efforts, that they target people who are trustworthy. They target people who tend to stand by the words that they speak and expect everybody else to do the same, but it is not the same.

So the first part of Bill 112 is certainly something that we have no problem—I shouldn’t say this. We could make that part even stronger, but the direction of that part of the bill is a direction that we support. I wish I had time to do a full debate on that because then I could really show you, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, what some of the practices are and, also, what needs to change in the bill in order to make this stronger. Unfortunately, I’m not given the opportunity to do that.

I never had a chance to speak to Bill 112. Now I have to speak to a closure motion that will mean that I will never have a chance to put on the record the good ideas that the people of Nickel Belt want to see changed in that bill. This is an opportunity lost. I don’t understand why we don’t want to hear from those people. I’m sure, like all 107 of us, we’ve all had constituents come to our constituency office with a contract from an energy marketer that they signed at the door that they wish they could get out of. To me, it is important to get those stories out, because good ideas come from this. Some of what is in the bill is certainly good, but could we make it stronger? Yes, we could.

Speaker, a bill is not an incremental affair. It’s not like this year we will go that far, and next year we’ll make another step to make the bill better, and the year after we will—no. Bills get worked on, and then it is decades before they get worked on again. So why not take our time and make sure that we have an opportunity to hear from everybody who has something to say about this so that we move forward in a way so that we can be proud of the work that we have done?

We can look at this piece of legislation and say together that we made this as good as it could be so that the aim of the bill, to protect consumers, is achieved in all parts of the province, because things are different. If you live on a remote First Nation, if you live in northern Ontario in a rural community that I represent or if you live in downtown Peterborough or Niagara or Essex, things are different. That’s why we all come together.

But when the government brings forward a closure motion—it’s called a time allocation motion—basically what they are saying is that they don’t want to hear from those good people, that the experience they have gone through—they’re not interested in listening to the people of Ontario, which is absolutely bizarre in a democracy.

In a democracy, our parliamentary system is made so that we take the time to listen to the people of our province. But in this particular bill, we’re not going to do this. I’m hoping that, through committee, we take the time to listen. There are some good ideas out there that will make this bill better. I hope we will take the time to listen to them and make changes.

The second part of the bill, the part that has to do with the Ontario Energy Board Act—this is awful; this is wrong. Why they have put two acts that really have nothing to do with one another into one single bill, I don’t understand, Speaker, but this has to change. Although I would say that most of us agree that we need to strengthen consumer protection when it comes to energy contracts and door-to-door marketing and all of that—we agree with that direction—I could not tell you how opposed we are to the second part of the bill.

Basically, the second part of the bill takes away accountability. It takes away transparency. It takes away consumer protection when it comes to the Ontario Energy Board. It opens the door for offshoring. It takes away restrictions for our environment. It takes away restrictions for transmitters and distributors of energy. This part of the bill either has to be taken out of Bill 112 or needs to be completely redone in this day and age where we have a government that is bound and determined to sell Hydro. No matter if we need the money or not, no matter if we are being taken to the cleaners because the deal makes no sense, they are bound and determined to do this.

After removing all the accountability that comes with the officers of this House, that is, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman—basically, all seven officers of this House won’t have an opportunity to look at Ontario Hydro anymore—now they are even taking away the powers of the Ontario Energy Board to protect us, the consumers; to protect us, the people of Ontario. This is all that the second part of this bill does: It takes away protections from us.

Why would you time-allocate something like that; something that is in such high need of better understanding? If the government has a valid reason for the second part of the bill, they have yet to share that with us, Speaker. I can see no good coming from taking away the power of the Ontario Energy Board, when it comes to distribution and transmission of power, and they haven’t explained why they are doing this. They haven’t justified how this is going to be useful to the province.

On the other hand, the Conservatives and ourselves have put on the table, I would say, some pretty valid arguments as to how the work of the Ontario Energy Board protects us, but they never answered back. They never told us how our read of the bill was wrong. If our read of the bill is right, that the Ontario Energy Board will be stripped of its power to protect the consumer in the distribution and transmission of power, then why link those two together? It’s still a mystery to me, and it is something that is wrong.

So we are against a time allocation motion when there are still so many MPPs who haven’t had a chance to speak on something that affects every single riding in our province. It is just wrong.

Quand le gouvernement décide d’imposer le bâillon sur un projet de loi—un projet de loi qui affecte tous les résidents et résidentes de l’Ontario, peu importe dans laquelle des 107 circonscriptions vous demeurez—ça nous empêche de s’assurer qu’on a les bonnes résolutions pour améliorer le projet de loi afin que le projet de loi nous protège, peu importe où nous vivons en Ontario. Que nous vivions dans une communauté autochtone isolée ou en plein coeur de Toronto, les réalités sont différentes, mais le projet de loi va s’appliquer partout. Il faut trouver une balance un peu plus équitable.

En plus, le projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d’énergie et la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario—une

partie s’en va dans la bonne direction. Elle pourrait certainement être renforcée, mais elle est très bonne. Mais l’autre

partie sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario n’a aucun sens et, franchement, nous met tous à risque, nous les consommateurs.

Je dois laisser un peu de temps, mais je vous assure, monsieur le Président, que nous sommes contre l’imposition du bâillon.

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

On Oct. 21, Mr. Leal moved government notice of motion number 41. Mr. Smith then moved that the motion be amended as follows:

That the paragraph starting “That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill” be struck out and replaced with:

“That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015”; and that the third bullet be struck out and replaced with:

“—That following the deadline, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear; and

“—That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list by 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 29, 2015; and

“—That the Clerk of the Committee

schedule witnesses from these prioritized lists.”

We are now dealing with Mr. Smith’s amendment to the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Further debate?

Mr. Leal has moved government notice of motion number 41. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will be taken after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Orders of the day? The Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Before I deliver this, I just wanted to say good morning. We have 25 French-language exchange students from Paris in Peterborough right now. They’re leaving to go home on Saturday. I just want to give them a big good morning.

My good friend the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell wanted to say good morning to the folks in his riding.

Having said that, I move government order G85, which is an outstanding bill.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 20, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

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

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

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s always a pleasure and an honour to be able to stand in this House to speak to bills brought forward by the government and in respect to the riding that I come from, Hamilton Mountain.

This bill, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015, is a far cry from what we really thought we would see when we see a title such as that. The government is lacking the ability to provide the leadership in respect to presenting Bill 85 as substantive legislation when it’s evidently obliged through needed regulatory changes.

To call this a “strengthening and improving” act is misleading, as the public may rightfully assume that real changes would be made to legislation, instead of minor amendments that we can say are more common sense.

This bill evidently neither strengthens nor really improves government. As has already been mentioned in debates before, it is really only housekeeping on a range of issues which, alternatively, could have been accomplished even more effectively through regulation. There are many, many, many other important issues that this government should be tackling and working hard to legislate that would benefit Ontarians. Instead, they choose to focus their attention on amending acts that, in the long run, would not have any substantial impact and will not truly impact or strengthen government.

In respect to changes to the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, this bill would amend the act in order to provide immunity from lawsuits for Ontario Medical Association, or OMA, representatives for negotiated agreements or when making recommendations to the government. This amendment implements an already approved provision of the 2012 physician services agreement between the government and OMA. This is an amendment that has been long promised to our OMA staff. However, I find it ironic that the government is suggesting amendments to the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act to protect OMA staff from lawsuits when this very same government themselves recently made cuts to the OMA.

This bill is supposed to strengthen and improve legislation, but how can this be justified when they themselves want to interfere with our health care system? I have personally heard from OMA staff in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who have been affected by these cuts. The doctors may appreciate being provided immunity from lawsuits, but they do not appreciate the mismanagement of resources and reduction in medical care funding.

In the

preamble of the medicare act, it states that the act affirms that “a strong health system depends on collaboration between the community, individuals, health service providers and governments, and a common vision of shared responsibility.” The common vision of shared responsibility has been skewed. The government has set the bar low in protecting our doctors so that they can say they have overachieved in providing immunity for lawsuits for them in this particular amendment.

This amendment cannot pacify the government’s cuts to the OMA. A doctor emailed my constituency office in Hamilton and said, “the conditions the current government has created for physicians, mean that despite our hard work, few of us feel appreciated, instead we feel like we are seen as a problem to be managed.” Another stated, “As a doctor, I don’t feel respected by this government. I don’t feel that the government is empowering me to provide quality, patient-focused care. Ontarians rightly expect doctors and government to work together, that means returning to meaningful and respectful bargaining.”

With a loss of respect now from the government in collaboration with the doctors, I think the government needs to reconsider what will ultimately strengthen and improve the health care system.

With respect to the Employment Standards Act, to reiterate, it would be amended to make it clear that demands for money made to third parties like banks are valid for 365 days from the day they are served. This is simply to align with tribunal rulings on already-established precedence on the collection of monies owed. The amendment that the government is suggesting does benefit the employees; however, this amendment neither significantly strengthens nor improves the government. To ensure that this amendment is effective, the Ministry of Labour requires additional staff to ensure enforcement.

As mentioned before by one of my colleagues, there also needs to be a more aggressive, more transparent and more effective complaints mechanism for all employees in this province. Presently, the ministry lacks an effective system to investigate complaints and labour violations.

I recently spoke with a constituent whose husband was hired through a temp agency to work 12-hour continental shifts for almost five years now—almost half a decade, and he is technically still a temp worker. He has never seen a raise, he has no benefits, he has no pension, he has not earned any vacation time, and there is still no obligation for his employer to hire him. There is no job security for this young man, who has a family. He has some minor health issues that are affecting his performance of his job.

However, he feels—or, better yet, he fears—that if his employer finds out, he will be terminated, because his employer sees him as just a temp worker. How can we expect someone who has no job security and will not complain about their health issues to their employer to have the courage to complain to the ministry if there is any violation in terms of their labour rights?

Almost 75% of temp agencies audited by the Ministry of Labour this year broke the law. There needs to be a mechanism that allows for individuals like my constituent to justly complain and notify the ministry of issues.

He is not alone in my riding or in this province. Most temporary agency workers are not given equal break times as their permanent co-workers, despite completing the same job in the same hours. Also, people who are temporary workers are often paid less and not paid on time. There are a number of issues in the area of temporary agencies, and those workers do not see a way to complain about any of the injustices without being penalized.

If we really want to improve the Ministry of Labour, as this bill semantically proposes in its title, “to strengthen and improve government,” one way that my colleague the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton strongly recommended was to strengthen and improve complaints mechanisms and then, most importantly, to have a vigorous system so that we make sure people are all able to enforce the rights and protections that all workers in our province have.

Again, this amendment would end up benefiting workers, but if the ministry does not do their due diligence to execute enforcement, it will prove to be insignificant. We know what it’s like when it comes to enforcement from this government, Speaker, in many ministries.

While this bill looks to amend a number of ministries, the government has again missed the mark. If the government truly believed in the name of the bill, “to strengthen and improve government,” they would have taken into consideration the Ministry of Energy. Sure, this bill does amend a series of acts and impacts various ministries, but what about real, meaningful changes? Instead, the government has weakened accountability and transparency with respect to the Ministry of Energy.

The government passed legislation that removed the Ombudsman from providing accountability and oversight to the energy file. Again, it is ironic that the government considers concerns put forward by the Ombudsman when it comes to amending the Highway Traffic Act to regulate private sector non-emergency stretcher transportation vehicles and their drivers, but removes oversight from the energy file. Trying to amend and strengthen one ministry while weakening another is truly counterproductive in their efforts to improve government.

The Ministry of Energy, particularly Hydro One, is one of the most complained-about areas in our government. I still get phone calls and emails from constituents upset about the government’s decision.

Speaker, I’m running out of time quickly here. Jeez, 10 minutes goes fast. Wowzers.

Under the public system and under oversight, the public was able to complain about billing issues to the Ombudsman, and they had their office investigate that problem and reported it back to the government. Now with the way the government has reduced those oversight mechanisms, it’s definitely not improving or strengthening our government. Again, this government puts out a great title and nothing in the bill to follow it—things that could have been done by regulation.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very happy to respond to the member opposite. But I do have to take issue with her characterization of the bill as only housekeeping and not really having any impact. One of the things that the bill does is amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to what are officially called non-emergency stretcher transportation service vehicles. These are the things that you might notice parked outside your local hospital that look almost like ambulances, but they’re not really.

What they really are are transfer vehicles that are run by a private company and that take people from long-term care to hospital; from hospital A to hospital B, if it’s non-emergency; or from hospital to home. But what’s consistent about the people who are being transferred is that they can’t really sit up in a regular taxi or a passenger car. They actually need to be on a stretcher while they’re being transferred.

This is an area where, once upon a time when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and looking at issues around rural and northern health care, I heard a lot about the inconsistency in the standards and performance of this particular sector. It’s also something that attracted the attention of the Ombudsman, who made a number of recommendations a year or so ago about the inconsistencies in this particular sector.

So what the bill would actually do is require that, in order to operate one of those companies, you would have to hold a commercial vehicle operator’s registration, and vehicles, drivers and attendants would have to make specific requirements for the vehicle; contain particular equipment in case an emergency does arise; and the attendants would be required to meet minimum standards so that they have the capacity to respond. We would be addressing all of those core issues.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to thank our NDP colleague for raising some valid concerns about Bill 85 because, while it’s cleaning up a few items here and there, it really—I do agree with you—does nothing to improve government. I totally agree with that. It’s a nice title, but it’s only a name.

Bill 85 was actually introduced seven months ago, and it covers nothing significant and it makes no serious changes to our province. In the same amount of time, however, the Liberals—I think it’s rather ironic, Speaker. They introduced this seven months ago and it covers nothing, as I said. It is going to really make no difference in the lives of Ontarians across the province, but on the flip side, the Liberals are saying they could get a comprehensive cap-and-trade system pulled together, introduced and implemented in the same amount of time.

That makes me nervous, a little bit, in that we have a simple housekeeping bill that took seven months to come together and debate and, meanwhile, an incredibly far-reaching, comprehensive initiative that’s going to touch every Ontarian gets rammed through in seven months? It doesn’t make any sense.

At the end of the day, we need to be coming forward to this Legislature and introducing legislation that is going to make a difference for Ontarians. We need to be focusing on the initiatives that get down to the business of making the province profitable again, attracting investment and jobs back to Ontario, and putting more money into the pockets of the province’s taxpayers, as opposed to wasting our time here on Bill 85, which is simple housecleaning. It really doesn’t touch on issues that I will be glad to speak about in a few minutes’ time.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain about Bill 85.

The only good thing I can say about Bill 85 is it has a pretty good title:

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts. For anyone who has listened to what the member for Hamilton Mountain had to say, you will have realized that Bill 85 is really putting together six or seven different bits and pieces of bills to bring things forward. Some of those bits and pieces sort of make sense. Some of those are quite puzzling, as in, why do we need to change something that has to do with people reaching age 65 when, 10 years ago, we settled this? People want to continue working past age 65, they have been doing that since the last 10 years. But Ontario has clued in that the law changed 10 years ago and now wants to change it also.

Some of it is bizarre; some of it could have been done long ago; some of it could be done through other means; and some of it has value. But in a typical Liberal fashion, they put all this in the same pot, in the same bill, and they bring this forward. It’s hard to understand.

We have a labour bill on the docket right now. Why not take

schedule 4 of the Ministry of Labour and simply add it to that bill? We have a number of bills that have to do with health care right now. Why not take

schedule 3 and simply add it to a health bill? We have a number of bills that—I see my time is over. It’s still a weird bill.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House today to talk about the Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

We all come to this House with a vast array of our past experiences and we continually draw from these experiences in order to debate, write and create government bills. We’re making changes, as has already been mentioned, to several acts, including the Courts of Justice Act, the Family Law Act, the Provincial Offences Act and several others.

Each side of this House debates from its own political perspective. I don’t think that it’s “puzzling” or “bizarre,” as has been mentioned; it’s an effort to improve efficiency and improve government.

We are looking at modernizing processes and making systems easier to manage and navigate. A number of small but important measures have been designed to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of government. They are proposed amendments to existing statutes and not new pieces of stand-alone legislation.

There is no effort made to hide anything within this bill. It is, as has already been said, a housekeeping bill that cleans up a few issues.

We will always debate from our own perspective, we will always try to bring into the point of view of this House something from our riding. I think that that’s a natural thing for us to do. But there’s nothing in this bill that is controversial. It’s a cleanup bill, and I’m very happy to lend my support to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Hamilton Mountain. You have two minutes.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thanks to the Minister of Education, to the member from Huron–Bruce, to my wonderful colleague from Nickel Belt, and Kingston and the Islands.

As we can see here, this bill, all of these different pieces, are also confused by the government. The minister says it’s not housekeeping, that it’s very important; the member from Kingston and the Islands says it’s housekeeping. Which one is it? Is it not housekeeping? Is it housekeeping? Can we not get down to the real business in this House that Ontarians want to hear? We want to talk about hydro. We want to talk about housing.

We want to talk about important issues that are being faced in this government—accountability, oversight and the lack thereof—instead of a title that’s called Strengthening and Improving Government Act. We need to talk about what really needs to be strengthened and what really needs to be improved. The things that are in this bill, other than what I’ve seen with the stretcher transportation—other than that, everything could have been done through regulation. It could have been the sweep of a pen and it was done.

Instead, we’re spending surmountable amounts of time here in this House speaking about things that really don’t need to be here before us.

I would like to see oversight in a lot of areas. Children’s aid societies: We’re still seeing major gaps. Our hydro system: With the swipe of this government the Ombudsman has been taken out of that equation. Health care: We have a patient ombudsman, but we’ll see how well that works—not as at arm’s-length as the provincial Ombudsman himself is.

There’s a lot of work to be done here. Hopefully, we can get this pushed forward and hopefully get on to some real business.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to be able to speak to Bill 85 because it’s important that we use this bill as an example of how the government is wasting time and skirting issues that really need to be addressed.

Mr. Michael Harris: And money.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: And money. Thank you. Yes, very good point.

While it’s sad to say we’ve seen a lot of government mismanagement here at Queen’s Park over the past decade, despite that fact, at the heart of the matter, Bill 85 is really just a caretaker bill. As has been mentioned earlier, it’s a housekeeping bill, and, unfortunately, it does absolutely nothing to improve government.

When we take a look at it, this bill is affecting 15 acts. For the record, I just want to read them in: the Courts of Justice Act, Family Law Act, Provincial Offences Act, Vital Statistics Act, Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, Employment Standards Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, City of Brantford Act, City of Hamilton Act, City of Toronto Act, Municipal Act, Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, and the Highway Traffic Act.

In particular, I’m going to focus in on how we really should be improving government. In the first swipe I want to focus in on the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Again, this is just a housekeeping bill but, clearly, day in and day out, proof comes into this House that substantiates government mismanagement. Work with me on this, Speaker, because it does tie in really nicely in the sense that just this past week, we had proof that direct impacts can happen from industrial wind turbines. That took me down a path to examine what health and safety standards, regulations and oversight we have associated with industrial wind turbines.

Even in estimates committee yesterday, in speaking to the Minister of Energy, when I asked who oversees nuclear energy—it’s an impartial third party at the federal level. When I asked about who oversees hydroelectricity and natural gas, the answer was coming back as IESO. Who oversees wind, which is, according to this government, a very important component of Ontario’s energy mix? It’s tied tightly to the apron strings of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. We are identifying a huge gap.

With regard to occupational health and safety, in doing some of my research I came to realize that the United Kingdom has a benchmark, if you will, in terms of safety associated with turbines that I think we should seriously be considering right here in this House. I offer to work with the government right here and now to make sure that we have those standards in place.

Mr. Michael Harris: Olive branch.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes. I extend the olive branch.

For the record, I want to recognize that in the United Kingdom, there are certain items of equipment that are subject to time-based inspection schedules. These include lifting equipment and lifts, pressure systems, equipment for work at height such as fall arrest systems and other points, and fire detection and suppression systems.

About four or five weeks ago, I met with a company that actually said they’re concerned, in terms of occupational health and safety, at the lack of protection when it comes to safety—I could go on and on, but I need to make sure I get all of this in—also, emergency equipment, rescue and evacuation, fire detection and suppression, emergency lighting and first aid equipment.

At the root of it all, when it comes to occupational health and safety associated with industrial wind turbines, asset integrity needs to be assured, especially in areas of the structure where failure could result, like we’ve identified this past week from reports from my riding of Huron–Bruce.

When we talk about improving government and we go back to revisit the name of this act, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, we could be doing so much more in securing and assuring the safety of Ontarians throughout this province.

I’d also like to focus in on another act that Bill 85 touches on, and that is the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act. Again, I beg your indulgence because I will come full circle on this as well. Health care is something that has affected all of Ontario, as we’ve seen this past week in the House with regard to the frustration Ontario doctors have had, but also in terms of front-line services in Huron–Bruce. I find it frustrating that this government blusters about wanting to make improvements to a health care act, among others, when they can’t even live up to the

preamble of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.

I want to take a moment to remind the House what is said in the

preamble of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act. It says, “The people of Ontario and their government: ... Recognize that access to community-based health care, including primary health care, home care based on assessed need and community mental health care are cornerstones of an effective health care system.” Well, Speaker, those cornerstones have eroded over the last decade.

Just yesterday, in meeting with representatives of PAO, the Police Association of Ontario, the root cause of many of the issues they deal with is mental health, and they are in the front of the line saying that this Ontario government today is failing people suffering from mental health. If we’re going to address responsibility, we have to make sure that responsibility lies in upholding promises made to the people of Ontario.

When I speak of promises made and health care, I have to remind you, Speaker, that in August 2011 the people of Kincardine and area were promised by a former representative of the Liberal government that they were going to get a new hospital. Unfortunately, after the election of October 6, 2011, that particular minister and representative did not return to the Legislative Assembly. Guess what? The next budget absolutely stripped away the money for the Kincardine hospital. It is not fair.

My colleague from Perth–Wellington had a very important private member’s initiative whereby all ridings should be treated equally, especially when the need has been identified and the promises have been made. But, unfortunately, time and again, we have exact proof that this government is playing favourites. They’re playing with taxpayer dollars. Is that strengthening and improving government? Absolutely not.

Again, thinking about health care, denying Ontarians access to quality, affordable health care is not good governance. It’s negligent. I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, again, I see it in my own riding. We know, across this province, the wasted money that gets poured into various scandals. In the spirit of health care, we can’t ever forget about the wasted millions of dollars that the eHealth scandal evolved into, if you will. Is the eHealth scandal indicative of a strong, responsible government? I think not.

Now, it’s interesting that they’re planning to cut 50 medical residency spaces over the next two years, along with the cuts that they’ve been making to physician services. Rural Ontario is in search of more doctors. It just doesn’t add up. They’re cutting residency spaces, as well as money for services already conducted, as well as access to front-line health care. Is that responsible, good government? Again, I say no, especially in light of the fact that our population is aging. If we don’t start properly allocating funding that we have in terms of our scarce taxpayers’ dollars, we’re going to have a really rough ride of it.

These seniors paved our way. We stand here proudly in this House because of everything that seniors have done to get us to where we are today. They should be enjoying their retirement and they should be spending time with their families, but instead, on fixed incomes, they’re worried about making ends meet. With escalating electricity costs, the cost of food going up—again, they are on fixed incomes. They’re stressed, and it’s just not right.

I’ve looked at Bill 85 and I’ve seen the amendments that they want to make, and it just doesn’t mean a hill of beans in the big picture of things. I stress the fact that this caretaking bill has taken seven months to come to fruition. It makes me nervous because this was just a caretaking bill, but when it comes to cap-and-trade, they’re ramming it down our throats in seven short months. We know the mess that this government made out of the Green Energy Act, and I can’t help but worry about what lies ahead of us in the future.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m certainly pleased to rise on the bill. I found it very interesting that the Liberals weren’t sure whether it was a housekeeping bill—because one of our colleagues was saying it’s housekeeping and somebody else was saying it wasn’t housekeeping. I was really surprised that the education minister wasn’t sure whether it was housekeeping or not housekeeping. Maybe that will explain why we’re having so much trouble in the education sector on getting collective agreements.

Today, I find it very interesting that we’ll stand here and talk for an hour on a housekeeping bill, yet this morning, on time allocation of Bill 112, consumer protection and electricity system—we want to time-allocate that, on something as important as hydro. It makes absolutely no sense.

You take a look at Bill 85 and it talks a little bit about medicare. I want to say this very clearly: I only wish this government cared about health care. I’m going to tell about an area in St. Catharines and one of my colleagues, where they have CarePartners, who are out on strike, trying to get a first collective agreement.

A lady named Linda Knight has forced that situation. Here’s what she’s doing: She’s forcing nurses who are working piecework and $15 an hour on the picket line, yet—Mr. Speaker, think about this—she is flying nurses in from Sudbury. She’s putting them up in hotels. She’s paying their meals, paying their mileage, yet those poor workers in St. Catharines and our patients, our seniors who our colleague talked about, who we’re supposed to care about, aren’t getting the service they deserve.

I’m saying if you really care about health care, will the health minister please intervene in that strike and put those workers back to work so we can get proper health care for our seniors?

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d just like the opportunity to clarify a couple of things. I think the minister said that this is not just a housekeeping bill. Take, for example, the changes made to the Ontario child support guidelines. These are extremely important changes and they will require every person whose income is used as part of a child support calculation to provide the other parent updated financial information on an annual basis.

I’m sure that every single member in this House has had single mothers in their offices in a situation where they’re dealing with child support issues. I don’t think that it is at all wrong to clean up or housekeep this part of the bill to make sure that children get what they deserve. It’s extremely important. So I would rather not use my time to debate a single word, whether it’s housekeeping or not housekeeping. “Housekeeping” implies that you are cleaning some things up. This is a bill that will modernize and improve legislation, many pieces of legislation. That’s something that we should be doing as a government. That’s what we’re here for.

I think that there is no point in wasting time debating a word. I think that we need to focus on some of the details of this bill. There are some very positive improvements in the bill, and I would encourage all members to have a look at it, rather than waste time in this House debating on one word as an adjective—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to commend the member from Huron–Bruce on her remarks. I share a number of her concerns as well about Bill 85. I know there’s a number of issues, and she touched on many of them, that arise from this bill. It does touch on a number of different acts—I have the bill; here it is—with a number of different schedules that are affected, whether it’s health or the Ministry of the Attorney General. I know that in my office, we deal with a number of these different issues on an ongoing basis.

Family law: That’s one that could certainly use some help. I don’t know whether this bill here will go very far towards dealing with it, but I know my office continually deals with family responsibility issues. It certainly could use some help, so if it will go anywhere towards doing that, I would certainly applaud that. I am sure it can’t go far enough to take into account all of the issues that are there.

The Ontario College of Trades: We’ve had our issues with the Ontario College of Trades. I know there’s a number of people in my riding who have concerns with that. And even some people who supported it earlier on are now having second thoughts, because it’s starting to impact on job sites and on employers as they try to conduct their work. It’s an issue that we highlighted for a year or more.

The Green Energy Act: We don’t need to say much about the Green Energy Act. Everybody knows those issues with the Green Energy Act as far as the imposition of wind turbines in small-town Ontario and rural Ontario, where they don’t want them. They made it clear that they’re unwilling hosts, but this government doesn’t listen.

I’m always concerned, when there are new bills brought in, if there’s not the proper oversight. So I would want to commend again and go back to the member from Huron–Bruce and the great work she did in her advocacy, in her portfolio, in her critic’s role, and also in the work that she has done on criticizing this bill and pointing out where there are shortcomings.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s an honour for me to rise on behalf of the people I represent in London West to offer some thoughts on the comments from the member from Huron–Bruce about Bill 85, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

As usual, as we have often seen in this place, the government has a very creative title-writer over on that side of the House, because there are many things that Ontarians would like to see to strengthen and improve government, and most of the amendments that have been included in this legislation actually do very little to strengthen and improve government.

It’s kind of ironic that, in fact, we opened up the session this morning with a discussion about Bill 112, the consumer protection and electricity system oversight legislation. Really, it is oversight—it is better oversight, better transparency—that Ontarians are hankering for. We have seen that they have had no opportunity to participate in the discussion around the broadening ownership of Hydro One, the sell-off of one of Ontario’s most precious assets.

This legislation really is a caretaking bill, a housekeeping bill. It just tinkers around the edges of the real needs that we have to ensure better oversight and greater transparency, which is what we actually need if we are to truly strengthen and improve government so that we can be responsive to the needs of the people that we represent in our ridings across the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Huron–Bruce. You have two minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Two minutes isn’t enough to actually express my appreciation to two of my colleagues in this assembly with regard to the comments they made.

To the member from St. Catharines: I agree, Linda Knight is a wonderful lady. She hails from the little village that I grew up near: Belgrave, Ontario. She cares, and she does want to do the right thing. I agree, she needs to have assistance from the Ministry of Health in order to get the issues resolved at that level so that our seniors and our folks requiring that front-line care do have the resources at hand. It is a worry.

To the member from Kingston and the Islands and the member from Sarnia, as well as London West: You shared comments that all bring me back to the fact that we need transparency. We need to be responsive to the needs of our people. I appreciated that phrase specifically from the member from London West. The member from Kingston and the Islands also reminded us that we’re here to make a difference.

That brings me to the member from Sarnia. I am, to the end of my days, going to advocate for doing right by our communities that are unwilling hosts of industrial wind turbines—the end result of a misguided, mismanaged Green Energy Act because, as we’ve identified this past week, there continue to be huge holes eroding and being unveiled in terms of how this has been rammed down Ontarians’ throats. Green energy has contributed to the increased cost of electricity, and now we’re concerned that direct impacts are happening as industrial wind farms age and continue to be put up in haste. We can do better by Ontarians. We must do better.

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

M me France Gélinas: I’m glad to have a few minutes to talk about Bill 85,

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

I want to zero in on a part of the act that I have been pushing for, for a long time. This

part is medical transportation services. We have, under this Liberal government, a push to privatize health care systems like we have never seen before. Cancer Care Ontario happened to be at public accounts two weeks ago, and we can now see that private clinics do over 50% of the work, and cancer screening is now done in private clinics.

We have seen all sorts of problems directly linked to the privatization of the health care system. So it is no surprise to you, Speaker, or anybody who follows health care, to see that the use of transportation services other than regular publicly funded ambulance services is rampant within our health care system. I would tell you that private ambulance transport—way, way more business than what is being done by real ambulances.

If I cannot stop them in privatizing everything that is not acute hospital beds, at least we will push them to regulate that industry. Why? Because everybody who has looked at this has said, “This is a disaster.” It’s not a disaster waiting to happen; it is a disaster that has already happened. It is a disaster where the vehicles being used are completely inappropriate, poorly maintained and poorly driven, but more troubling is that the care that is being provided to those people strapped on those stretchers in the back of those pretend ambulances—some of them have died and a lot of them have had poor care.

What do we have under this bill? We have a government who will pretend that they have regulated the patient transport industry, but all they’ve done is changed the transport act to say that the Ministry of Transportation will now have to inspect the vehicles. Really? After eight years of telling you that there’s this woman who died, babies have been put in danger and a lot of poor care is being provided in the back of those pretend ambulances, what do the Liberals do? They tell us, “We will make sure that your tires are not flat and that they’re wrenched on good.” What the heck is this? How could that be?

Many Ministers of Health—I can remember when Smitherman was still there; I can remember when David was still there; I can remember when—she’s still a member of this House—the member from London was there. They and the present minister all said that this industry needs to be regulated.

This industry is being used more and more in Ontario. It has issues with quality of care and needs to be regulated, and the regulations that we are given are that we’re going to inspect the vehicle, make sure that it passed the Ministry of Transportation inspection. So I guess it’s not going to be emitting too much CO 2. We’ll make sure the tires are good. I’m sort of hoping that in northern Ontario, they’ll actually ask for winter tires in the winter, but we don’t even know that. All we will know is that the vehicle is safe to drive: a little step in the right direction.

If you read the report from the Ombudsman, he said those are vehicles that look like, smell like and are designed to look like ambulances, but they are not. He was not only talking about the shape of the vehicle—if it is so rusted there is a chance the stretcher is going to go straight through the back, or the vehicle is so unsafe that the back door opens up and there’s a chance the stretcher goes out the back while you’re on the highway and you are strapped in there unable to move. That was only part of it.

The bigger part of it is who is providing the care in the back of those ambulances, because if you did not need ambulance transport, you would be transported in a car or a cab. We don’t expect a cab driver to be able to provide care; that’s not what we expect. But when you call an ambulance, it’s because you’re sick; it’s because you’re frail; it’s because you’re at risk; it’s because you need care.

Don’t you think, Speaker, that the people who come and pick you up in those vehicles that look like ambulances but are not should have a minimum of knowledge as to how to care for you, should have a minimum of skills as to what you do when somebody gets sick, should have a minimum of competence to look after you if things go bad? None of that is in that bill. I waited way too long to settle for something like this.

I know exactly what they will do. They will say, “Oh, we have passed regulations. The patient medical transport services have now been regulated.” And most people who don’t dig any further will feel reassured. I can see all of those private companies that offer medical transporttation services will be very happy to say, “We have now been regulated. We follow regulations. We are happy to report that we have regulated and we meet and exceed the regulations imposed by the government,” and everybody will be so proud and so happy. But it will mean nothing.

It will just mean that the wheels won’t fall off and the door won’t open up. It won’t mean that you will be getting quality care; it won’t mean that the people beside you have any sort of training whatsoever to help you if something happens. That’s a major problem with this bill.

I’m sure if I spoke to any one of my colleagues one on one and said, “Do you think that people in medical transportation services should be able to look after you if you code, if you have a heart attack, if you happen to start vomiting in the back of the ambulance, if you happen to have an epileptic seizure or if you happen to have anaphylactic shock from some medication that was just administered to you? Don’t you think that you would like the people next to you”—because there will be somebody sitting there next to you in the back of the ambulance who usually is dressed like they belong to the health profession, but it is all for show. There is no substance to this.

But if I ask my colleagues if they would like that person, everybody would say yes. Why don’t we do this? We’ve already got this bill that opens up the health care act. We already have this bill in front of us that cleans up a bunch of other acts.

While the acts are open, why don’t we do the right thing and say, “Yes, we want the wheels to not fall off, we want the tires to not be flat and we want the vehicle to be acceptable to be driving on a road, and we will make sure that the person next to you is able to help you in your time of need when you are strapped onto a stretcher, unable to move.” I think that’s quite reasonable. I think that’s what we expect when the government comes forward and regulates things, but that’s not what we have here.

There are lots of other bits and pieces in that bill that are also problematic. Some of them, frankly, should be addressed in regulation and some of them are just beyond bizarre—things such as being able to file documents to the court electronically. Really? In 2015, we haven’t found a way to let people file documents electronically?

It’s easy to talk about, “Let’s save the environment,” and, “We are the most environmentally conscious government,” but we will ask you to kill trees and print a whole bunch of stuff that you could just as well file electronically, especially when you have to file six, seven and eight copies of the same document because it may go to six or seven different people. Some of it is bizarre. The whole thing is bizarre.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Private members’ public business

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list draw of October 25, 2015, for private members’ public business such that Mr. Clark assumes ballot item number 10 and Ms. Scott assumes ballot item number 56.

Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to welcome to the Ontario Legislature a teacher and class from my riding of Kitchener Centre. Mr. Scott Jones and his class are here from Forest Heights Collegiate. Welcome.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature today Mr. Stephen Martin, who is the father of page captain Samuel Martin-Chase. They’re from the town of Blue Mountains in the great riding of Simcoe–Grey.

Ms.

Andrea Horwath: Joining us today in the chamber—I don’t think they’re here yet—will be a number of people from the registered nursing profession: Linda Haslam-Stroud, registered nurse and president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association; Marie Kelly, the CEO-CAO of the same organization; Sheree Bond, a media officer; Lauren Snowball, the campaigns officer; and Lawrence Walter, the government relations officer; as well as RNs Rhonda Millar, from North Bay Regional Health Centre; Colleen Morrow, from Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre; Cathryn Hoy, from Kingston General Hospital; Bernadette Robinson, from St.

Francis Memorial Hospital; Sandra Bolyki, from University Health Network; Kurt Weber, Headwaters Health Care Centre; Angela Preocanin, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, in Hamilton; Donna Bain, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton; James Murray, London Health Sciences Centre; and Joanne Wilkinson, London Health Sciences Centre.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, please welcome to this House the young girls from grade 5 from Holy Name of Mary, from Mississauga. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome my friend Liam Dutaillis, who is here all the way from Newcastle, Australia. He’s on an exchange from the Australian Labor Party, here to witness what we do at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Liam.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House’s attention to a special birthday today. My parliamentary assistant, the member for Sudbury, Glenn Thibeault, has a birthday today.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to welcome our page captain—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure that the other people who want to introduce somebody want people to hear.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome our page captain Soham Shah’s parents today—his mother, Dipanki Shah, and father, Hetal Shah—and his aunt Ketal Shukla and grandfather, Ramesh Shah. They should be joining us in the next few minutes.

Mr. Joe Dickson: We will be welcoming this morning several grade 10 classes from J. Clarke Richardson Collegiate in Ajax. We welcome them, when they arrive.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the Legislature today are students from MicroSkills, from Don Valley East. We welcome them to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Anniversary of shootings in Ottawa / Anniversaire de la fusillade à Ottawa

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to remember the one-year anniversary of the shootings on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes, followed by a moment of silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to provide each party with up to five minutes to speak on the issue and one minute of silence afterwards. Do we agree? Agreed.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark the anniversary of a day that shocked and saddened our nation last year: the violent attack on Parliament Hill and at the National War Memorial in Ottawa.

Je prends la parole aujourd’hui devant l’Assemblée législative pour commémorer une journée qui a bouleversé et attristé notre nation. Je veux parler de la violente attaque survenue sur la Colline du Parlement et le Monument commémoratif de guerre du Canada à Ottawa.

The events of October 22, 2014, are burned into our collective memories. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was just 24 years old when he was killed as he stood guard at the memorial that honours the sacrifices of our soldiers. In just a few awful moments, a senseless act of violence took the life of a soldier, a father, a son and a friend. We must remember his life, his service and his sacrifice, and also the sacrifice of others who have died in the line of duty—soldiers like Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, killed in Quebec only two days before Corporal Cirillo.

We must remember them because every person in uniform stands prepared to make that sacrifice every day, as so many have, so that we may continue to live in a province and a country that is safe, secure and free.

Il nous incombe de nous souvenir de la vie du caporal Cirillo et de l’adjudant Vincent, de leur service et de leur sacrifice, et de nous montrer reconnaissants que tant d’hommes et de femmes soient prêts à faire ce sacrifice au nom du Canada.

There is no doubt that what happened on October 22, 2014, will always weigh heavily on our hearts. Other people were injured, and the lives of members of Parliament, public servants and bystanders were at risk. But no other lives were lost, and this is a tribute to the quick actions and bravery of law enforcement and security personnel at the scene.

Today, as I extend my condolences on behalf of the government of Ontario to the family and friends of Nathan Cirillo, I also join with people across the country in honouring the brave security personnel and first responders who kept Ottawa safe a year ago today and who keep all of us safe every single day.

The events of a year ago sent a ripple of fear and uncertainty across our province and our country. I want to repeat what I said in this chamber on that day: People who use violence to undermine democracy want to silence us. We refuse to be silenced. We will not be silenced. Nous refusons de nous taire, et nous ne nous tairons pas.

We will carry on with the business of this House and the business of our democratic society. Today, as we honour the life and sacrifice of Corporal Cirillo, we affirm that in the face of tragedy, all of us in this Legislature and all Ontarians will remain united and continue to uphold the ideals of democracy, freedom and peace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merci.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to rise today in remembrance of the Ottawa shooting at Parliament Hill a year ago today, and to the government House leader for providing this opportunity and this initiative.

Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a reservist from Hamilton, was a very proud member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada. The cold-blooded killing of Corporal Cirillo as he stood on guard at the National War Memorial shocked the country, but it also strengthened our nation’s resolve for vigilance.

On October 22, 2014, Canadians were united in sadness over this horrific and cowardly act. Corporal Cirillo was only 24 years old. As stark of a reminder as this senseless act represented of the dangers that exist in our society, we are thankful for the example of courage and compassion shown that day by private citizens and the emergency personnel who, without any regard for their own safety, came quickly to Nathan’s aid in spite of the unknown circumstances. I would like to commend the RCMP, the city of Ottawa police and the House of Commons security for their swift action that fateful day.

I was in the House that day as a caucus member in the government caucus room, mere feet from where the shooter travelled through the building. I am grateful to the security detail for bringing that incident to a swift resolution and for preventing any further loss of innocent lives. Certainly, there are some moments in life that you never forget, that are etched in your memory, and for me, that is one of them.

I also want to pay tribute to Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was killed earlier that week in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu by a man reported to have been influenced by the global jihadist movement. Warrant Officer Vincent was a 28-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces and was considering retirement to become a cabinetmaker when he was killed. He was only 53 years old.

Let us never forget all our fallen heroes like Nathan and Patrice, who served in defence of our country and our province. They paid the ultimate sacrifice so we can live in a free, democratic and safe society. Today, we honour the memory of these fine men.

I remember the days that followed in Ottawa, the sense of pride there was in Canada, the sense of pride there was in Ontario, how everyone was united in the honour of that courage and the honour of their fallen. It was one of the many moments that we were tremendously proud to be Canadian.

On behalf of our PC caucus, we send our deepest sympathies to their families and to all who knew them as we express our sincere appreciation for their service to their country.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m honoured today to rise on behalf of Ontario’s New Democrat caucus to pay tribute first to Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, as well as to one of Hamilton’s fallen sons.

A year ago, all of Canada was shaken at the events that took place at our National War Memorial on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. We were saddened by the tragic loss of Corporal Nathan Cirillo of Hamilton’s Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders regiment. I’ve had the pleasure of representing this part of Hamilton where that regiment is based, at the armouries, as both a city councillor and as an MPP, and I spent many, many Remembrance Days with these incredible reservists.

The outpouring of support in response to this tragedy a year ago made me proud to be a Hamiltonian and a Canadian. I was proud to witness the spontaneous outpouring of support from my community in Hamilton and across the country for Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent. The strength and resilience of my community, and of Canadians, is an inspiration.

A beautiful monument appeared outside the armoury in downtown Hamilton, and crowds of people gathered to witness the procession on James Street North and to show their support. Even Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was quick to write to the family and sometime later held an audience with members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders regiment.

Corporal Cirillo’s family didn’t want people to mourn his death but rather to celebrate his life. So last night in Hamilton, at sunset, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders held a commemorative ceremony to celebrate Nathan’s life. Many, many community members joined them.

Those who knew him say that he was fearless, that he had a passion for service, a passion for the army and, perhaps most importantly, that he was a kind and loving father. All of our thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

We are grateful for the brave women and men like these two soldiers who gave their lives in service to our country. Their deaths are a stark reminder that our men and women in uniform put themselves in harm’s way even when the risk they face is unexpected.

New Democrats across Ontario say thank you to those women and men who serve, who have served and who, in some cases, have given their lives for our country. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and a debt of gratitude to veterans and their families. We know that without their sacrifice, we would not be standing here today enjoying the freedoms that they fought for and which we all hold so dear.

Today, New Democrats join with all members of this House to say thank you to the loyal and courageous soldiers who have and will continue to risk their lives for our safety, for our freedom and for our democracy. We all stand in solidarity with our fellow Canadians to proudly say thank you to Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. We will never forget your service and we will never forget your sacrifice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their heartfelt and thoughtful comments. At this time, by the motion, I would invite all people who are able to please stand for a moment of silence in remembrance of the situation.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Bill 122 is a failure. It caused the longest teacher strike in 25 years. It caused the government to walk away from negotiations multiple times and it has now cost the people of Ontario millions of dollars to pay for this government’s failed bargaining process. The Liberal government gave $1 million to OSSTF, $1 million to OECTA and half a million dollars to AEFO.

Interjections.

Mr. Patrick Brown: This side of the House may find that funny. I do not. Will the Premier tell the House: Where did that money come from?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to just take a moment to go a little bit back in history because I think it’s important for everyone to understand the context. There was a time in this province when school boards had a different role to play. School boards had the opportunity to fund education at the local level. They had taxing authority. Each year, they would go to the municipality and they would express their concerns and their desires for an increase in the mill rate, and then there would be the appropriate money that would flow to the school board.

Mr. Speaker, that was all changed when the previous Conservative government took that right to allocate money—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —to raise taxes in their jurisdictions. That change—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right after I say, “Order,” somebody starts. The member for Leeds–Grenville will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: At that time, a number of us were involved in the debates in our communities, whether as school trustees or whether as parent advocates, and we said, “You know what’s going to happen now? You’re going to have to have a provincial process because if the funder is only the province, then there needs to be a provincial process.”

I’ll follow up in the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I’m going to try to rephrase this in terms that are quite direct. We know that these payments are a small part of the story, but the government didn’t negotiate alone. They had other groups on their side of the table against the unions. The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association and ACÉPO all negotiated on behalf of the province as part of the flawed two-tiered bargaining system.

Will the Premier tell us how much money the Liberal government gave those associations to negotiate these contracts? Where did the money go to? Where did it come from? Please enlighten the House.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I need to continue to lay out this history because the chaos that the Leader of the Opposition would have experienced when he was in high school was actually created because of those changes that were made by the previous government. We were—many of us—involved, as I say, in warning the government of the day that there would have to be a provincial process to take into account the fact that the taxing authority had been taken away from the school boards.

For a number of years when we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re inching closer to warnings.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: For a number of years when we came into office, we were dealing with the aftermath of that reality. Everyone knows that it’s very difficult to undo a structural change—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —like the one that was made by the previous government.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a simple question.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So we worked closely with all of our education partners to develop the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, and that’s what’s important. There needed to be a provincial process. We worked with our partners to set it up.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: All things being equal, it’s safe to assume that this government would have given other associations the same payout they gave the unions. That means the Liberal government could have spent well upwards of $5 million for their mistakes, for their flawed bargaining process.

Will the Premier answer two simple questions? I will try again: How much money did she pay the unions and their associations for their bargaining costs? And, number two, where did that money come from? A direct question—please answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is, what we have to do is come to an agreement. We’re talking about—is it $22 billion or $23 billion?—a $23-billion endeavour in Ontario. That’s what publicly funded education is—

Mr. Steve Clark: Answer the question.

Interjections.

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

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We need a working partnership with our education workers and with trustee associations—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The legislation that we put in place helped to establish a process that was made necessary because of the changes that had been made in the structure of school board governance. That legislation formalized an informal process that had been necessary to put that provincial process in place.

In 2004, 2008 and 2012, those provincial discussion processes were different because the changes had been made. We had to create that provincial process. We did it.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is again for the Premier. Since she has no interest in talking about the $1-million payout, let’s talk about the Hydro One fire sale.

The people of northern Ontario stand to become some of the hardest hit by this sale. Small communities scattered throughout the north rely on Hydro One transmission lines to power their homes and businesses.

While those lines might not be profitable for Hydro One, the cost is offset by the profits that Hydro One was making in highly populated areas like Brampton. But this Premier has already sold off Hydro One Brampton, so the ability to subsidize for more expensive transmission is gone.

Will the Premier guarantee the residents and businesses of northern Ontario that her fire sale of Hydro One isn’t going to drive hydro prices in northern Ontario through the roof?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment on the details of the process that we’re undergoing.

But I will just remind the Leader of the Opposition that the decisions we’ve made around broadening the ownership of Hydro One, the protections that we are putting in place, are a direct result of lessons we learned in the fire sale that that party put in place when they sold off the 407.

We made it very, very clear that we would not undergo such an initiative that would not put protections in place for the people of Ontario, and that the way hydro rates are determined is through the Ontario Energy Board. We made it very clear that we would guarantee that there would be access to reliable power across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: What about the north?

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: To get nuclear power produced from the Darlington generators to Timmins, Ontario, power must travel over 600 kilometres. Building 600 kilometres of transmission lines is incredibly expensive, and the return on that investment for Hydro One is minimal.

If a private company is faced with a similar decision to build 600 kilometres of power lines to reach a northern community like Timmins, they may just say no. They will say no even though those transmission lines are in the best interests of northern Ontario.

My question is for the Premier: When faced with the choice between what’s in the best interests of northern Ontario and what’s in the best interests of a private company, if that private company chooses an approach that is not in the best interests of northern Ontario, will you do the right thing and tell them to build those transmission lines?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There are members of the Progressive Conservative Party across this province who are wondering where this leader stands. His party has a specific policy to broaden the ownership of Ontario Power Generation, broaden the ownership of Hydro One and sell shares to the public, and it specifically says they will rely on the Ontario Energy Board to regulate rates. That is their policy.

If he is now disavowing his own party’s policy, let him stand up and say so. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth, and it’s about time—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have something to say, but I’m waiting until I have attention.

The minister will withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Withdraw, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And as far as the rest of it is concerned, shouting people down is not what this place is about.

Final supplementary, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: Ontario’s economic prosperity was achieved because of successive PC governments who understood that the availability of affordable power was good public policy. The loss of majority control of Hydro One means the government loses the ability to—

Interjections.

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

Please put your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t realize the pitch for affordable energy would strike such a nerve.

The loss of a majority control of Hydro One means that the government loses the ability to expand transmission lines as a matter of good public policy. If a privately owned Hydro One feels that expanding transmission lines to the Ring of Fire, for example, is a bad decision for a private company, they may not do it, and that’s bad news for northern Ontario. Doesn’t this side get it? This is going to affect northern Ontario.

Will the Premier acknowledge to the House today that this might hamper the ability to see the Ring of Fire come to realization—that dream for northern Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what’s going on in this House. He doesn’t realize that there is a bill ready to be approved in this House that will give the cabinet the authority to designate where transmission will go—not Hydro One. We’re doing that to protect the public. There are many things we are doing with respect to broadening the ownership of Hydro One that give control over planning, over what is happening in the sector. He does not know what the IESO does in terms of planning. He is not aware of the legislation that’s going on in this House. He should go back and do some research.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has said that deciding to sell off Hydro One was a difficult decision and that, despite overwhelming opposition from Ontarians, it was necessary because there just wasn’t any other way to get the money.

The new federal government has already pledged $2 billion for GO Transit in the GTHA and $2.6 billion for SmartTrack, which must come as an enormous relief to the Premier, because now even she has to admit that she doesn’t need to sell off Hydro One after all.

Will this Premier do what is right for Ontario: stop the sell-off of Hydro One and negotiate a fair deal for infrastructure with the federal government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, no. We have a responsibility at the provincial level of government to build infrastructure, to make investments that are necessary across the province. I would argue that is the same responsibility that the municipal governments have, and I know that municipal governments across this province are taking that responsibility very seriously.

It is terrific that we now have a federal government that understands that they need to partner with provincial and municipal governments. It’s not up to one level of government. It is our responsibility to continue to implement our plan, to live up to the commitments that we made to the people of Ontario, and that is exactly what we’re going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I wish the Premier could hear herself, because she sounds ridiculous. Forty per cent of Ontario municipalities have asked this Premier to stop the sell-off of Hydro One. She used to say that but for our federal partner, she wouldn’t have to—

Interjections.

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

Please ask.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She used to say that, because there was a lack of a federal partner, she had to sell off Hydro One, but now she has the federal partner, and she’s still saying she has to sell off Hydro One. Speaker, it makes no sense whatsoever; 80% of Ontarians don’t want her to sell off Hydro One.

I would have thought it would have come as a relief to this Premier that the federal commitments to infrastructure actually absolve her of her need to sell off Hydro One. She should be standing up for what is right for Ontario, and she should be ensuring that those federal dollars come for our infrastructure process, for our infrastructure needs, and that that money moves quickly. Does she believe that Ontario’s fair share is coming?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I stand up for the people of Ontario every single day. That is exactly what I do. That’s my job. It’s my responsibility. I will continue to do that while I am in this job, because that is what has led us to the plan that we are now implementing. We know that the investments that are necessary in this province are investments in roads and bridges and in transit. We know that we have to invest in people’s talent and skills, and draw business to this province.

Speaker, a cornerstone of that economic viability is our infrastructure investment. In the same way that, when we came into office, municipalities didn’t throw up their hands and say, “Oh well, we’re not going to continue to invest in our people or stand up for our communities”—they continued to do their work—we are going to continue to do our work, but now we have a partner at the federal level that’s going to work with us.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Talking about standing up for Ontarians and actually standing up for Ontarians are two different things. Ontarians don’t want Hydro One to be sold off. That’s the standing up that this Premier should be doing. The bottom line is this: The Premier seems determined to plow ahead, despite the fact that the federal government will be providing over $400 million annually in a new infrastructure program.

If the Premier isn’t going to listen to Ontarians, then the people have to wonder who the heck she is listening to. Will she finally do what is right, stop the sell-off of Hydro One and get to work ensuring that Ontario’s fair share of federal infrastructure money flows?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just analyze exactly what the leader of the third party is suggesting. She’s suggesting that we basically go tools down on the projects that are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The conversation that’s going on between the member from Essex and the Minister of Government and Consumer Services is not helpful at all; it’s distracting.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She’s suggesting that we just put tools down on the projects that are in the works. She’s saying we just sit back now and abdicate our responsibility to make the investments that we have committed to the people of Ontario; that we not continue to work with the communities in the northwest of this province; that we not continue to work with the communities of the east and the southwest of the province, to invest in their infrastructure, in their roads and bridges and in their transit; but that somehow we just wait for the federal government to come to the table. They’re at the table. They’re going to work with us, but we have a responsibility.

Nurses

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. During the last general election, the Premier and her Minister of Health said that they would not cut front-line care and that they would not cut nursing positions. In 2015, there have been 625 registered nursing positions eliminated in Ontario’s nursing workforce. This amounts to the loss of more than one million hours of RN care for Ontario patients.

These aren’t my numbers, Speaker, these are the numbers provided by the nurses who are here in the gallery today. Will the Premier explain to these nurses why it is that the government is breaking their promise and cutting nursing positions and hours all across the province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to speak to this in the supplementary but let me just be clear that there are 24,000 more nurses working in Ontario today than there were in 2003—24,000 more nurses. We understand that there is a transition in communities where there is more community care that is being set up. We understand that hospitals are working and that we need to continue to work with the LHINs, with the hospitals in this province, with the community providers to make sure that people get the care that they need when they need it and where they need it.

But there are 24,000 more nurses in Ontario than there were in 2003. We have added to that complement. We will continue to increase health care funding in this province, Mr. Speaker, as we go through the transformation that is required because of the demographics in this province. That is the responsible thing to do to make our health care system sustainable and to allow it to thrive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Ontario patients deserve more nursing hours, not less. The scientific evidence is clear: Every nurse being cut out of our hospitals puts patient care and patients’ lives at risk. We know that the government is cutting nursing hours and laying off nurses across our province. The Liberals have tried to deflect blame to our hospitals, to the LHINs, to anybody else that they can point to, but they have frozen hospital funding for the last four years—the longest unbroken period of real-dollar, public hospital cuts in Ontario’s entire history.

Will this Premier commit to stopping nursing cuts and to providing Ontario’s hospitals with the funding that they need to provide proper nursing levels?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to start by welcoming our nurses here. Linda Haslam-Stroud, representing the Ontario Nurses’ Association, is here today. She has brought with her, importantly, registered nurses from right across this province. I know they had a press conference this morning to express the concerns they have with regard to retaining nurses in our hospitals and other environments, to the work that we’ve done but need to continue to do to stabilize the nursing workforce across the province.

We’ve made significant investments to help stabilize the nursing workforce, but we do know that there is much more work to do. I have reached out to Linda today and indicated—I know that she’s anxious to meet with me, and I’ve committed to meeting with her to talk specifically about that issue of stabilization and nursing retention—the critically vital work that our nurses, our RNs, do in our hospitals, as they do right across the province. I’m prepared to talk more in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, registered nurses have specialized skills that are crucial to complex patient care, but the share of RNs in Ontario’s nursing workforce is falling, and we have the second-worst RN ratio in Canada, with less than one registered nurse for 100 people.

Nurses are suffering from increased workloads, from epic stress, from burnout, and a deep professional concern from seeing patients not receiving the care that they need. Anybody who has been in hospital recently—over the last couple of years, in fact—and talked to the nurses who are working in the hospitals will tell you the same thing.

Will this Premier commit to the nurses here today, and to all Ontarians, Speaker, to stopping the cuts to nurses and nursing hours across our province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that Ontarians do understand. I’ve got the figures for RNs in this province right in front of me for the last five years, and in every single one of those five years, the number of nurses—the number of RNs, specifically, working in this province—has increased year over year over year, every single year in the last five years up until the most recent data, which is 2014-15, of course.

And I also want to remind Ontarians that, in fact, it was under an NDP government in the 1990s where there were 3,000 fewer nurses working in this province from the beginning to the end of their tenure in government. The number of RNs in Ontario fell by almost 3,000 persons in this province under the NDP. Of course, we know the PCs fired 6,000 nurses and referred to them as obsolete hula hoops.

Mr. Speaker, I commit to working with ONA, as any responsible government should. We continue to work hard to stabilize the RN workforce. I’ve committed to working with Linda and her team to see how specifically we could work on this challenging issue of retention.

Probation services

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. For weeks following the tragic deaths in the Ottawa valley, I asked the Attorney General and the Premier how they intend to act on the recommendations made by the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. They have yet to provide a satisfactory answer.

According to the chair of the local community policing advisory committee, Renfrew county’s single probation officer is overloaded because of the failings of this Liberal government. The province’s lack of support to probation and parole services in places like Renfrew county is the reason why repeat offenders like Mr. Borutski have not been more closely monitored.

Mr. Speaker, why has the Premier failed these victims by refusing to allocate the adequate resources to ensure that violent offenders are more closely monitored?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have received a copy of the October report on domestic violence with respect to what the coroner’s work has done in this regard. It contains a number of government-wide recommendations, which I have reviewed.

As I’ve said before here, this is a very serious issue and should not ever be tolerated in Ontario. We all have a responsibility to find out what else we can do. The report, as I’m sure the member opposite knows, highlights the importance of public education and preventing domestic violence.

In terms of what happened in Ontario, the tragic incident that happened in Renfrew county, I did speak to the executive director of the sexual assault centre there.

While we have a number of initiatives to support women and men who face domestic violence, we know there’s more to do as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to go back to the Premier. Really, it is a matter of priority. I appreciate the minister of women’s issues comment about the shelters.

This is very much a serious matter, that the government has not provided the resources to ensure that Ontarians can live in their homes without fear. In 2012, your government’s own report from the review committee recommended that supervision for offenders on probation would benefit from ongoing collateral contacts to confirm the status of the offender. The report also said that when an offender fails to meet the terms, progressive enforcement must align with the level of risk.

The oversight that is currently in place is just not acceptable. Three women have lost their lives because of this government’s inaction—and, since, I’ve been asking the questions. So why does the Premier refuse to recognize the needs of the probation officers in Ontario so this doesn’t happen again?

Interjections.

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

Minister responsible—

Interjections.

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

Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, the needs in rural Ontario are acute and real, and that is why the Minister of Community and Social Services and her ministry have invested significantly in terms of shelters and services, an increase of 61% since 2003.

I just want to highlight, if I may, that when the PCs were in power, they cut shelter services by 29% in one year alone. They eliminated all counselling—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: That list unfortunately goes on and on in terms of the cuts that were faced by that sector.

However, our commitment is to supporting women who face sexual and domestic violence. We have our sexual violence action plan. We have a permanent round table on—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Since the beginning of the process, the Minister of Education has failed to do her job when it comes to bargaining. The minister has been playing games, first with major delays, then with her own so-called confusion about what was being negotiated at each of the tables: class sizes, professional development, delays, net-zero agreements, not to mention the various different versions of the story we have heard over the past year.

The minister has no credibility anymore. The minister will say or do anything to save face. The result? Chaos in our schools.

Will the Premier admit that her Minister of Education has failed our kids and their families and that she has lost all credibility?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would note that the Ontario Labour Relations Board actually agreed with my version of what was going on last spring, so she might reconsider that question. But I will talk to you, Speaker. What I would like to say is, we obviously have three outstanding contracts that we need to get agreement on: the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the CUPE education workers and the OSSTF education workers. What I can say to the House is that, in each of those cases, we have either established dates or the mediator is actively working to sort out dates. People have agreed that we need dates. In all of those instances, negotiations will convene. That’s how we get agreements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: In fact, yesterday in scrum the minister said that there were six outstanding agreements, so thank you for making my point.

Speaker, back to the Premier: It’s clear that these negotiations have been botched from the very beginning. Since day one, all of us in this House and across Ontario have been hearing excuse after excuse from the minister. The minister hasn’t been taking negotiations seriously. She has been blaming everyone except herself—being perplexed about the facts when it comes to tough issues, forcing kids to pay the price while chaos flourished in our schools due to her inability to bargain effectively.

Speaker, the minister simply doesn’t have credibility anymore. It’s time for her to go. My question is simple: Will the Premier tell her Minister of Education to resign immediately?

We have three other groups with whom we are continuing to negotiate. In fact, one of them is at the hotel today. The other three groups, who are all education workers, we also need to get agreements with. We are negotiating with them and we’re not having job action with them. That’s the update.

Government accountability

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I know that as we move to broaden the ownership of Hydro One, the mechanisms of oversight are changing to those that apply to publicly traded companies. As part of our government’s commitment to transparency and accountability, Hydro One will be required, through legislation, to create an internal ombudsperson who would report publicly and continue to protect consumers.

The minister has previously informed us that Hydro One has been working closely with Denis Desautels, a former Auditor General of Canada, to ensure that terms of reference for the position are appropriate, that adequate resources will be provided and that the successful candidate has the prerequisite skills and experience to successfully perform this important role.

Could the minister please inform the House if there is an update on Hydro One’s search for an ombudsperson?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you to the member for Newmarket–Aurora for the question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we asked Denis Desautels, former Auditor General of Canada, to oversee the establishment of the ombudsperson’s office to ensure transparency and accountability for customers.

We are pleased that Hydro One has selected a very strong, professional and experienced ombudsperson in Fiona Crean, most recently the ombudsperson for the city of Toronto. As Hydro One’s new ombudsperson, Ms. Crean will provide an independent and impartial perspective on matters referred to her by Hydro One customers. She will also establish an appeal process for unresolved complaints to the independent Ontario Energy Board. Ms. Crean will report directly to the board of directors in order to ensure independence and to allow the board to provide strong support for any recommendations made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you for the update, Minister. It’s great to hear that Hydro One, with the assistance of Denis Desautels, has managed to hire such an excellent and experienced candidate as Fiona Crean. It is reassuring to hear that, as Hydro One’s new ombudsperson, she will report publicly in order to continue to protect consumers.

Now that Hydro One has selected Ms. Crean as its new ombudsperson, Hydro One must ensure that the office is established in such a fashion as to ensure independence and accountability. I know we’ve asked Denis Desautels to oversee the establishment of the ombudsperson’s office to ensure transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, through you, could the minister inform the House as to Ms. Crean’s experience as an ombudsperson, as well as if she has any experience in establishing and setting up an ombudsperson’s office?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Ms. Crean was appointed by Toronto city council as Toronto’s first ombudsman in November 2008. The office began to offer services on April 6, 2009. I might add for members that she prefers the term “ombudsman,” so henceforth I’ll refer to her as ombudsman rather than ombudsperson, by her choice.

She brings to this position decades of professional experience dedicated to fairness in government and social justice. She also established the office of ombudsman for York University and was executive director of the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. This background has given her significant experience in conflict resolution and the promotion of accountability and responsiveness by large organizations.

Ms. Crean will ensure that Hydro One customers will continue to be protected and ensure that any concerns are being heard and acted upon. An excellent choice by the board of Hydro One.

Access to justice

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. The minister committed to me in this House on Tuesday to bring forward my concerns to the chair of the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals, SLASTO for short.

Jeffrey Ferland and Canadians for Properly Built Homes have been requesting the transcripts from a proceeding at the LAT for over a year. The request has been met with a year of prolonged silence. The apocryphal element of this story is that the LAT insisted in February that the transcript was lost, but they are also now telling the plaintiff that copies may or might be obtained by filing a freedom-of-information request.

Transcripts of testimony and evidence are essential, and they must be available or access to justice is denied. Is the minister’s tribunal purposely suppressing these documents, or are they totally incompetent and have lost the transcripts?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you for the question. The administrative tribunal hears 180,000 cases a year. It plays a vital role in Ontario’s justice system. Tribunals use their specialized expertise to adjudicate on a wide variety of disputes in an independent and impartial manner. So our government has built an effective, efficient and accessible administrative justice system.

On this side of the House, you know—if the member opposite has a problem or one of his constituents has a problem, I invite them to write directly to the chair of the tribunal. We have very competent people at the tribunal, we have a very competent chair, and they always work to improve the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Attorney General: I guess you didn’t hear my first question. They have met with a year of prolonged silence.

The minister disagreed with me on Tuesday when I suggested our tribunals are in dire need of fixing and modernization. She cited her confidence, once again, in her unnamed professional experts. Today, I’ve offered you the first of a litany of examples of failings occurring at our judicial tribunals.

Can the minister commit today to having her ministry investigate SLASTO and determine if this transcript is indeed missing or if the LAT is actively suppressing information from the plaintiff? Will she act on the multitude of public complaints and commit to conducting a thorough investigation and report back to this House on the state of our broken tribunals and these people who are being denied access to justice under her watch?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange to have this question, this concern, this morning, but sure, we’re going to look into it.

I have been visiting law firms across Ontario recently, and they always give me the model of our administrative tribunal. And do you know what? They want more rather than less. Our administrative tribunal is working. If there is concern, like I said, they can write directly to the chair of the tribunal and I’m sure she will take action.

I will come back to the member—not to the House, but to the member—about his complaint.

Social Assistance Management System

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Community and Social Services has spent an additional $21 million to fix her Social Assistance Management System since last March. The flaws of the new system created chaos for vulnerable people receiving social assistance. The minister thought the system was ready last November. She was wrong. Now she says that this time the system will work.

Can the minister guarantee that this final version of SAMS will not create more chaos for people like the last final version did?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m certainly pleased to give an update on the situation with SAMS. We have acknowledged that the implementation of SAMS would require additional costs for transition. As PricewaterhouseCoopers has pointed out, we’re dealing with one of the most complex delivery systems in North America. We have some 570,000 cases on social assistance. We have 11,000 users of the system in some 250 locations. We have a combination of provincial staff delivering ODSP and municipal staff delivering Ontario Works.

I would like to thank all of our partners in this endeavour for their dedication, both those on the front lines, our union partners and the project team, as well as PwC.

We have addressed the issues. We are adopting all 19 recommendations that PwC made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: After rushing a flawed system out the door, social assistance cheques went missing and vulnerable Ontarians suffered needlessly. Yesterday, the minister released a statement that offered absolutely no apology for the chaos that she created in the system. Instead, her priority was to distract from her government’s negligence with the claim that the new system is simply cheaper than it was to implement the old system. The minister does not understand that the new system is not cheaper for vulnerable Ontarians whose cheques go missing.

Why does the minister think that her job is to justify her own negligence instead of making sure that no more vulnerable Ontarians are harmed?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, we recognize that SAMS is a system that serves the most vulnerable, and that makes this investment so important. Support for front-line workers, more training and more testing is definitely something worth investing in.

At this point, perhaps I could outline some of the great benefits we have with SAMS. People will recall that the Auditor General noted that the previous system introduced in 2001-02 by a previous government was outdated and did not allow for strict adherence to the rules related to social assistance.

What have we now? Guided by our front-line working group, we now have information that caseworkers want, in a way they want it. We have customizable home pages, case-at-a-glance screens, flexibility to respond to changing client needs and now the ability to automate tasks that had to previously be done manually. We have a stable system. We’ve delivered seven million payments to more than 900,000—

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

Automotive industry

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. As the minister knows, our government has worked very hard at growing our economy and attracting jobs to our province. We all know that Ontario can only move forward economically by being at the cutting edge of innovation.

As the auto sector is a large and important employer in our province historically and continues to employ many people in Durham, what is the minister doing to encourage innovation in that sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think that is an excellent question.

Today, Ontario continues to enjoy a very strong presence in the North American auto sector. It directly or indirectly employs almost half a million Ontarians, and Ontario and Michigan continue to be in the top two in terms of sub-national governments producing automobiles.

But we continue to fight for future mandates and growth in a fiercely competitive global economy. We’ve done well in today’s auto sector, but that sector is in a state of technological disruption. We need to make sure that Ontario continues to lead as disruption courses through our auto sector. Our choice is either to lead this disruption in Ontario or be swept up by it, and we choose to lead.

Last week, our visionary Minister of Transportation demonstrated this by announcing that Ontario roads would be open to autonomous vehicle testing—a very important decision for innovation in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to thank the minister for his answer and his continuing work on this important file.

The auto industry is incredibly important to our community in Durham, and I know that many of my constituents will be pleased to hear of our efforts to encourage innovation.

As the minister knows, Ontario is first in attracting foreign direct investment in North America, and the minister has worked hard to continue this legacy.

Can the minister provide details of his announcement in Waterloo and what it will mean to the rest of us across our great province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way: Two weeks ago I returned from Silicon Valley, and every time I come back from there, I’m inspired by the growing recognition of the strength of the Toronto-Waterloo corridor, which is very much becoming a globally significant innovation driver. I can tell you that Ontario’s decision to open roads to testing of autonomous vehicles was greeted with great enthusiasm by industry innovators like Tesla and Cisco in the valley.

I was pleased to join our visionary Minister of Transportation and MPPs from Kitchener Centre and Cambridge in making this announcement in Waterloo last week. Waterloo really is the west anchor of our Toronto-Waterloo innovation corridor.

We’re now the first province in Canada to open up our roads to the testing of autonomous vehicles. This stakes out our role as a global leader in auto, in auto innovation and in the innovation sector as a whole in North America.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing twice about thousands of taxpayers’ dollars which were used to purchase a luxury eight-day vacation package in South Africa instead of going to social housing as it was intended. He couldn’t explain it or tell us whether there were any efforts made to get any of the money back. Perhaps that’s because it actually happened under the Premier’s watch when she was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Can the Premier explain how someone was able to use social housing dollars to go on a luxury South African vacation under your watch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Rural Affairs is going to want to add to this in the supplementary, but what I can tell the member opposite—under my watch, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, there were questions raised about this organization that had been set up by the previous government. We began to set in place guidelines, because it was important that we tighten up the processes that had actually been very loose under the previous government. Those guidelines were developed.

I know that the Minister of Rural Affairs will want to add to the comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Back to the Premier: Premier, we’re talking about a luxury package vacation, complete with winery tours and award-winning restaurants. I’ve read the government’s independent review, and it failed to find any of these expenses or take any steps to get the money back.

On Tuesday, the co-op housing federation are coming to the Legislature, and these are people who are stretching every dollar to provide housing for people in need. This abuse is an insult to those people and 168,000 people who are waiting on the list for public housing, and the Ontario taxpayer.

Can the Premier tell us whether the government has taken any steps to recover the thousands of taxpayer dollars that were spent on luxury South African vacations under her watch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I appreciate the supplementary from my colleague from Oxford.

When the government of Ontario learned of the situation, our government took swift action. We employed an independent third party to come in to do a comprehensive review. Our request initiated an independent review. The review has been verified with HSC and we’ve taken the right steps towards improving accountability and transparency.

Actions taken to date: We’ve refined its business activities. We’ve streamlined the organization structure. We’ve reduced overhead administrative costs and enhanced corporate reporting transparency. We revised board remuneration expense policies so they’re in line with the Management Board of Cabinet directives. We’ve committed to invite a third-party reviewer back again in 2016 to report on the implementation and the recommendations, and provide any additional changes that our government needs to take on this issue.

Diagnostic services

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Since 2009, PET scans are available to people in northern Ontario, northwestern Ontario and southern Ontario, but for patients living in northeastern Ontario, we still don’t have access to PET scan technology without having to travel really long distances.

But, Speaker, I have good news: Mobile PET scanners are becoming more frequently used in Ontario and they could travel up north, but we need the minister’s permission before a mobile PET scanner can come to northern Ontario.

My question is simple: When will the minister agree to let a mobile PET scanner come to Health Sciences North in Sudbury to serve the people living in the northeast?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work of the member from Sudbury, in fact, on this specific issue, because earlier this year he actually invited me to Sudbury to sit down and have a meeting with health care professionals on a variety of issues, including specifically to look at this issue of the long-standing request by the citizens of Sudbury and advocates—whether it would be prudent and appropriate to invest in a PET scanner for Sudbury itself. So I want to commend him for that hard work.

It was a result of his hard work and also that meeting that I engaged the good advice and expertise of the province-wide PET scanner steering committee. It’s a steering committee that exists within Cancer Care Ontario, but its role specifically is to provide that expert advice on where, when and how PET scanning facilities and provisions should be made available to Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave