 for that cooperation. It is now time for a question period, the member from the Community of Parliament. I'd like to start the question period off today by congratulating all municipal campaigns yesterday for a fine display of democracy. Also, I'd like to extend my congratulations to three former members of this Assembly who won in three of Ontario's major cities in my own home city. Former Cabinet Minister Jim Watson was re-elected. In Brampton, a great cabinet minister, Linda Jeffries was elected in Brampton. I congratulate her. And of course, on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, our former leader, John Tory, is the new mayor of Toronto. The Ring of Fire should be a beacon of economic growth and prosperity, not just for Northern Ontario, but for all Ontarians. Now, under this Liberal Government, it risks being up in smoke. Over the past decade, I've heard countless ministers assure us that they would rebuild this. Why does this government say one thing in their budget about the Ring of Fire and do another thing day-to-day to compromise its success? Thank you. I will thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There's no question, Mr Speaker, that our government is very much leading the way in terms of the development of the Ring of Fire. And particularly over the past year, I may say over the last six months, we've made very significant progress. We have put in place a Ring of Fire Infrastructure Development Corporation, something that will be tasked with bringing forward all the partners that can make transportation infrastructure decisions that I would say need to be made so the project can move forward. We have committed $1 billion to the tragedy of infrastructure, something that none of those parties across the floor supported, which we put through this summer's budget. And that is something that indeed we would love to have your support on, let alone the fact that the federal government should be joining those particular dollars. And may I say, if we could, thank you so much. Let me say also, the frame. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to ask the member from RIMSWER to come to order. Supplementary. The fact of the matter is we have lost jobs in Sudbury, in Thunder Bay, and in Toronto as a result of inaction by the federal government as a result of CLIFF's pulling out a massive investment into our north. Among the many reasons for the ongoing failures of the projects in the Ring of Fire is the lack of agreements that have been settled upon between the liberal government here and First Nations. And according to the Globe of Mail last month in September, CLIFF cited that the suspension of the project was due to numerous delays and difficult discussions with the provincial government, including the First Nations community who have also said that they've scolded you for ignoring their interests with the new development corporation. The government talks a good game about economic development, infrastructure renewal and working with First Nations, but we have seen time and time again over the past decade that you have lost your way on the Ring of Fire. Will the minister admit this is a 60 billion dollar cut to the economy of this province and to Northerners? This is a project of great economic development opportunity and the member is right. It's a 60 billion dollar materials that are in the ground and we're looking forward to the opportunities to develop them. But one speaks about the regional framework agreement which we signed with the Metaller First Nations. One thing we made clear was that we were very clear from the beginning, we made it clear, we made it clear. In order for this project to move forward, we need to get it right. And that's why that regional framework agreement is so vital and why we're continuing to carry on those discussions. Discussions related to regional infrastructure support. Discussions related to resource revenue sharing. So those are vital. And the work that we're doing with industry, and here we are today where we're having meet the miners in town, and that's because we're talking about the great opportunities that we're seeing in the mining sector. And certainly the Ring of Fire is a particularly exciting opportunity, but one we absolutely need to get right. That's our commitment. That's what we're going to do and we'd sure love to have a final supplementary. Well the Ring of Fire is turning to the Ring of Smoke because of seven years of inaction by this liberal government. It's disappointing that there has been such little advancement on something so incredibly important to the economic development and economic growth of this province. Former Premier Dalton McGinty once heralded this project as an I quote, the most promising mining opportunity the country has seen in a century. Yet to date, it seems we are nowhere realizing a $60 billion investment into our province. Does the minister understand that the most expensive spending scandal in Ontario today is naughty health? It is not orange. It isn't even the gas plants. It's the mismanagement of a $60 billion Ring of Fire project. Does he understand that? Question? Thank you. Minister? This is a project that is moving forward in a very significant way. We've got a development corporation we put in place. A development corporation that again is tasked to bring together all the partners to make the infrastructure decision that is so vital. This is an economic development opportunity and a part of the province that's never seen development before. A very remote part of the province. We need to get it right. So we've got the development corporation up in place. We're working very, very closely with the First Nations to make sure that indeed they see benefits in that project. And may I say, speaker, once again, this is the government. They made a $1 million commitment to the infrastructure. Not match by anybody. Not supported by that party. So while they can stand over there and speak this way, they're not in any way supporting a project that we know will be a tremendous value and benefit to our church and generations to come. Thank you. New question? Thanks very much. My question is to the government house leader. This week the president of the Treasury Board will be putting forward a bill of greater transparency and accountability, which your government deemed a priority when it took power earlier this year. In the spirit of transparency, will the government house leader support tomorrow's opposition motion calling for the last two witnesses, Laura Miller and Peter Feist, to appear before the Justice Committee before report writing begins? Thank you very much, speaker. Only if the I think the member opposite for the question. Speaker, as you are aware on June the 12th, our party, our government, received a very strong mandate from the people of Ontario. Part of that mandate was to make sure that we put in place some very pieces of legislation. The member from Leeds-Grenville's timing is not very good, because I just asked for order and then you talked. So that's one. Carry on. Speaker, thank you. Part of our mandate, Speaker, that is that we receive from the people of Ontario is to make sure that we put in place some very important pieces of legislation that died on the order paper. Things like reducing auto insurance, making sure that we index minimum wage to cost of living and, of course, speaker to ensure that we have got both public sector and MPP transparency. All those bills are going through the House speak and we're looking forward to the speedy passage. Thank you. Supplementary. Unfortunate that response, given the fact that today the Premier was heralded in the Toronto Star for saying her and John Tory, quote, share a talent for grown-up conduct that transcends partisan rivalry. The problem is just four short months ago your government said, and I quote, your government knows that trust is hard-earned but easily lost. Whatever capital the government earned on election day will be lost if two key witnesses do not appear before the Justice Committee. If the government prevents Laura Miller and Peter Feist from appearing before Justice Committee, it would be fair comment to say their commitment to transparency is weak and that their break from the McGinty era is just a show. I ask again, will the government House Leader do the honourable thing and allow the committee to complete its work by bringing in Laura Miller and Peter Feist? I think I in this House have spoken on a regular basis about the need for the Justice Committee to complete its work. We have spoken about the fact that we want the Justice Committee to resume its work so that they can provide guidance to the government when it comes to issues around the siding of large energy infrastructure and the kind of things they've been looking for. Speaker, that is why we have initiated that process and we urge the opposition parties to work in a constructive way so that the committee can finish its work. One of the clear messages, Speaker, that we receive from Ontarians that they do not want any more grandstanding and political stalling in this legislature. They want all members to work together and what we're seeing, Speaker, right now in the committee is the opposition party yet again grandstanding and stalling the work of the committee. Whether it's the lost opportunity at the Ring of Fire or preventing the Justice Committee from completing its work with the last two witnesses, it is clear you are breaching Ontarians trust and it's so disappointing that it's happening so near at the beginning of your mandate. The throne speech said, and I quote to you, and to ensure that its decisions are always made responsibly, openly and in the best interest of Ontarians, your government will take steps to allow the Justice Committee to write its report. Without listening to the last two key witnesses, that report will be incomplete. In the past four months, your government has touted openness and responsibility. What's changed? Speaker, I thank the member opposite for making my point by quoting the speech from the throne. It says exactly that we want the Justice Committee to resume its work so it can start writing the report. Speaker, and what's happening right now is the opposition is doing the polar opposite. They say one thing, but they do the other when it is in the committee, which is they're stalling a very simple procedural motion that will allow the Justice Committee to resume its work when it comes to the matter that it was looking at in terms of gas plants before the election was called by not letting the procedural motion go through there, actually undermining their own efforts to make sure that the committee, the Justice Committee, can get its work done and Ontarians can get the answers when it comes to recommendations that the committee could make by the work they've done for the last two and a half years by listening to about 90 witnesses. Thank you, Speaker. No question. The member from Kitchener Waterloo. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the acting premier. Yesterday, New Democrats asked three very simple questions about why the Liberals are choosing to open new HST tax loopholes at the same time as they say the cupboard is there that they have to sell off parts of our hydro system. We got a lot of bluster. We didn't get an answer. That's becoming the norm in this place. Does this Liberal government think it is progressive to create new tax loopholes for the wealthiest corporations in the province of Ontario at the same time as selling off a moving head with Harris style privatization of our utilities? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I ask that question, yesterday I joined with the rest of this House and congratulating people right across Ontario. Over 2,800 council members, 700 trustees were elected, thousands more put their name forward. I know I speak on behalf of the Premier in saying that we're going to work closely with those elected officials. I congratulate the voters as well for participating and making history yesterday. In regards to the question, I think the question started off by talking about tax loopholes. Again, what she makes reference to is a restricted tax input credits, which is not a tax loophole. In fact, the only loophole is her reasoning and her logic, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing to do as necessary to make us competitive and dynamic, and we're going to continue to do so by providing one of the most historic value-added tax systems that makes our businesses competitive, grows our economy, employs people, and that is how we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the problem is that the minister doesn't actually understand what a loophole is. Let's look at the Liberal plan. They say that they need money to invest in transit, even though they have created another loophole in their own Trillium trust and haven't dedicated a nickel thus far to transit. The Liberals plan is to privatize local hydro utilities. It does help energy speculators, but means that people on the hook for paying private power profits on top of skyrocketing hydro bills. At the same time, the Liberals are creating brand new HST loopholes. It puts even more into the pockets of the wealthiest corporations but leaves the rest of us falling behind. Can the acting Premier explain why the so-called progressive plan is squarely focused on helping Bay Street and not the people of this province? Mr. Speaker, it's all about investing in our future. $29 billion is dedicated to transit over the next 10 years. The members opposite voted against that, Mr. Speaker. It's also another hundred billion more in infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. They voted against that as well. The Trillium trust was established in a fall economic statement in 2013 to enable us to dedicate those funds that would come from any assets or any other issues that were sold that would be part of that fund dedicated to transit. That is what's been put forward, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about loopholes and tax credits, the very nature of their questions suggests that we shouldn't be competitive and we must. There are things with regards to the CRA and the federal government that prohibit some of what she's asking us to do. What we will do is provide for revenue integrity and continue to invest the money, the taxpayers' money, into our infrastructure. So perhaps the problem is that the Finance Minister doesn't understand what dedicated means because he certainly avoided the entire premise of that. But instead of closing HST loopholes, they would put money in the Treasury Board every year starting in 2015. You need money for transit. Close the loopholes. Why do the Liberals think it makes more sense to privatize hydro for some short-term cash when they could be start by closing planned HST loopholes and create long-term stability for this province? Okay, Mr. Speaker. There are no tax loopholes. In fact, what we are doing is finding greater integrity by looking. We made it very clear in the budget about finding ways to review our tax credits, review our grants. What she makes relative to is an HST component of a restricted tax input, which is not a loophole. What she doesn't also, and I fear that the third party, doesn't recognize the importance of investing in public transit. They didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. They don't see that as being a priority. We know it is. We'll continue to invest. We've dedicated the funding. That is clear. It's been in the budget, and we'll move forward for the benefit of the people of Ontario. Again, my question is to the Acting Premier. I tried this question yesterday, and I didn't get an answer. The Ontario government directly employs 3,600 qualified IT professionals. Over the last five years, the portion of the government's IT budget being outsourced to the private sector has increased by 63%. Why is the government expanding its use of private IT firms when a 2012 consultants report commissioned by the Ministry of Government Services found that several IT services cost two to three times as much more when provided by private sector? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we responded to yesterday, IT consultants do help the government to provide the services and programs Ontarians need in a cost-effective, efficient, and convenient way. We're living in the internet age, and Ontarians expect their governments to be accessible digitally. We have a strong record of reducing the use of consultants across the government. As we said yesterday, we need IT consultants when the capacity expertise does not exist within the Ontario Public Service. We turn to IT consultants when we need to gain external advice and specialized expertise. They feel they have all the answers within. We recognize that we need to partner with the sector in order to achieve what's best. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the minister doesn't understand is that IT outsourcing costs more, not less. During the 2013-14 fiscal year alone, the government spent $703 million on private sector IT services. This includes hiring 1,479 fee-for-service consultants at a total cost of $131 million. Many of these private IT contractors perform the same tasks as the IT staff currently employed directly by the government, except they cost two to three times more. Significantly reducing private outsourcing of IT could save this government $200 million. It's almost like you are willfully wasting money. When will this government reverse its policy of outsourcing IT and admit that it is a wasteful and expensive approach that results in hundreds of millions of wasted dollars every single year? When the need is short-term and non-recurring, like the one-time projects to get new programs up and running for cyber security upgrades, we've used IT consultants. And since 2003, a total of 1,519 consultant positions government-wide have been approved for conversion to the OPS staff positions, resulting in ongoing savings of approximately $60 million a year. And of those converted positions, 1,335 were IT consultants. We recently received approval to convert an additional 90 IT consulting positions to full-time equivalents. This will result in a further $3.6 million in annual savings at maturity. When you follow the money, you follow the real priorities of a government. And when we follow the money, we see that you are dedicated to private IT over the OPS. No doubt about it. And not only does outsourcing IT service end up costing more, but the government staff now get poorer IT service. For example, government IT staff who used to upgrade hundreds of servers that power government computers are now required to provide upgrading instructions to the hourly private contractors instead of doing it themselves. But government service upgrades are now delayed because private contractors don't work on the weekends or evenings. So you have hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted, reduced IT support for government services and ultimately lower quality services for the people of this province. Will this government admit that outsourcing IT has been a huge mistake and change course now? So, Mr. Speaker, we need to make upgrades. They're automatic and they require some support from the IT sector, and so be it. But we're managing our use of consultants through a three prong approach. One, by transferring work to government staff, that's a normal course. Two, by creating a central pool of government IT staff to work on government-wide projects. And three, by centralizing the acquisition of IT consultant services. The central mobile pool of IT and IT staff introduced in 2009 now saves the government $10 million per year, Mr. Speaker, so follow the money. Thank you. Thank you. And a question for the members of Leeds-Grandville. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The more is to the acting Premier. In yesterday's municipal election referendum, the people of Kingston gave a very clear message to your government. Almost 70% of them said no to a casino. So on behalf of the residents of Kingston and also those in my riding of Ganonakwe and Leeds in the Thousand Islands who are a willing casino host, they want to know one thing. They want to hear you say that the government's plans to relocate the Thousand Islands casino to Kingston is off the table. Is it? Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate Brian Patterson and David Ryan on their successful elections last night. We've always maintained that municipalities need to make their own decisions about whether they support establishing a gaming site. I've been consistent throughout. Municipalities and their leaders have an important role in gauging the residents' views on gaming sites and their communities. And the government will not impose the location of a gaming site on the municipality and so we will respect Kingston's desire not to do so. Thank you. Supplementary? No. Supplementary. You're waiting for it, right? Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The people that I represented Leeds in the Thousand Islands and Ganonakwe are very interested in working with the government on not just keeping the site in the Thousand Islands but also expanding on it. So I appreciate the answer. Now I'd like to know, because I know that the my local councils that were elected last night want to hear this, what are the next steps in expanding the casino and creating more jobs in Leeds, Granville? The next step is to continue investing for our future, not cutting, certainly not getting rid of 100,000 people, Mr. Speaker, on their job. So we'll continue to do what's necessary there. And Mr. Speaker, Pickering. Pickering has voted that they wish to proceed with establishing a gaming site. So we'll look forward to continuing to work with the municipality of Pickering and OLG to move forward with the next steps. OLG provides over $2 billion in revenue a year and that goes directly supporting schools, hospitals, and the services Ontarians rely upon in Kingston and elsewhere. We'll continue to be committed to modernizing the gaming in Ontario in a socially responsible manner, only to those municipalities that have decided to approve one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. A new question from Toronto Dancehall. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Minister of the Environment. A few weeks ago, we learned that Enbridge failed to install shutoff valves at 95% of the major water crossings along the route of its Line 9 pipeline. These were a condition of project approval. Now Enbridge says it doesn't need to install these valves. This is the same company that allowed 1 million gallons of tar sands oil to spill into Kalamazoo River. Ever since the federal government gutted environmental protection two years ago, we've seen a culture of impunity grow within Canada's oil and gas sector. Will the provincial government fill this vacuum and conduct a full environmental assessment of the Line 9 project? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly be happy to meet with the member opposite to fully hear your concerns on this. This is an issue that has been of great concern to the Government of Ontario. It is the Minister who has been dealing with this matter, has been the Minister of Energy, my colleague, and he has spoken in the House before about our concerns about the management of this. The Ministry of the Environment, Mr. Speaker, recognizes that we are moving more chemicals and more fuels and we do that either by marine or by truck or by rail. Pipeline has been one of the safest ways in which we have been moving important fuel and important chemicals that we need to sustain our economy. We just had a spill just outside of Sault Ste. Marie because a rail car went off the rail and dumped a lot of diesel. There isn't, we have to make sure that we have a Thank you. Supplementary. Well, Speaker, I would have appreciated a yes, but I'll go to my supplementary. Anne Ridge has also refused to be bound by the proposed pipeline provisions of the new Lake Ontario source water plans because the Ministry has not yet made them mandatory. So not only has Anne Ridge thumbed its nose at federal regulators, it's also trying to dodge provincial environmental protection as well. Will the provincial government regulate pipelines under the Clean Water Act and make sure Anne Ridge upholds the letter and the spirit of the proposed new Lake Ontario source water protection plan? Thank you. On the issue of source water, which is my responsibility, we now have of the 19 plans, I think 11 of them are approved. This is a process based on local knowledge through the through our Source Water Protection Act, which means that for the first time in Ontario's history, we protect source water, which also covers things like highways, rail lines, pipelines, and we do local risk assessment to make sure we have the protections in place. By the end of next year, we will have all of those source water protection plans approved, giving Ontarians the highest level protection for source water from this and other matters, Mr Speaker. So this government has a very proud record on environmental protection, has raised the standard. And I want to thank the member from St. Catharines who really did most of the work, Mr. Speaker, that I'm standing here offering up some credit for. Thank you. Thank you. Good question. The member from Kingston in the island. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, Ontario has placed a strong priority on phasing out and elimination of coal-fired electricity generation. This was discussed very positively and very frequently during the elections by the constituents of Kingston and the islands. In fact, it will come as no surprise to the members that we are the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal as a source of electricity production. You have previously informed the House that replacing coal-fired generation with clean, affordable and reliable generation has saved the province approximately $4.4 billion in avoided health and environmental costs. The people of Ontario are certainly grateful for the results of our government's initiative in fighting climate change. Thank you. And reducing pollution. Thank you. Stop the clock, please. Your time is up. However, I'm looking at two people whose seats are empty, where they normally sit and they're talking too much. Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, the question has to do with, to what extent is Ontario partnering with other provinces moving forward? And I thank the member from Kingston and the islands for the question. Ontario has been actively participating in the Council of the Federation's initiative to develop a Canadian Energy Strategy, or CES. Ontario supports the development of a CES that is reflective of the priorities of all jurisdictions and addresses common energy challenges. All provinces and territories are now participating in the development of a national strategy. It was established to address issues of energy demand, diversity of supply, access to new markets and climate change. And Ontario is focused on ensuring that the CES improved access to affordable, clean, renewable and reliable supplies of energy for all Canadians, including those living in aboriginal and remote communities. Mr. Speaker, a national energy strategy has been long overdue. Good question. Good answer. Can you stop the military? Thank you, Minister. I'm grateful to hear of this intergovernmental collaboration and cooperation on the Canadian Energy Strategy. I know that everyone in this House knows and appreciates the importance of working with all levels of governments and jurisdictions. The constituents of Kingston and the islands will be pleased to hear of the CES and how it not only will work to strengthen the economy and create jobs, but will address climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I'm certain that Ontario's collaboration with all provinces and territories regarding our energy resources, conservation and emerging technologies will lead to improved clean access to reliable and affordable energy. Could the Minister please elaborate as to how the Canadian Energy Strategy will work to strengthen our economy and how it will foster increased collaboration? Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Energy Strategy will express a renewed vision that describes the kind of energy future that all Canadians aspire to achieve and will promote the export of energy, expertise and innovation. All provinces and territories will work together in order to grow the economy, protect the environment, mitigate climate change, create new opportunities and enhance the quality of life for all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the CES will foster the development of pan-Canadian regional and bilateral agreements on energy development, transmission and transportation. We will continue to work with our provincial partners on this initiative and look forward to the revised submission of the Canadian Energy Strategy at the 2015 Council of the Federation. Mr. Speaker, we're proud that Premier Nguyen is showing leadership nationally on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions to the Minister of Health. Minister, the new PSA testing guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on preventative health care has everybody talking. Specifically, Prostate Cancer Canada is reminding us that when performed appropriately, the benefits of PSA screening far outweigh the negatives. Noting, metastatic prostate cancer cases would double and related deaths would increase up to 20% without screening. Minister, the Prostate Cancer Canada is advocating smart screening to avert the concerns highlighted by the Task Force and lead to more effective testing, tracking and, if needed, treatment. Speaker, 8 out of 10 provinces pay for this important cancer detection tool. Ontario is, in fact, one of the only countries that force men to pay out of their own pocket. So, Minister, why do men in Ontario not have to do a cancer test that could potentially save their life? I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the question. It's because that we follow good scientific evidence, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple. In fact, the national recommendations that just came out yesterday speak precisely to that. It's not simply about the ability of the test at times to detect cancer, but it's also looking at the risk of morbidity and mortality for what's known as false positives, where the test proves to be positive. But prostate specific antigen is something which is naturally occurring in the body. And if you have what's known as a false positive, where the test is positive, in fact, you don't have cancer, that could lead you down a pathway where you get unnecessary, even harmful, sometimes fatal surgery. So, what's important here, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that solid national recommendations that are relevant here in Ontario, that they're based on scientific evidence and that we follow the guidance of the experts that are brought together specifically for this purpose. Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Minister, men across Ontario are asking why they're left to foot the bill for a test that could save their life. Frankly, they're calling on you to deliver a liberal, now seven-year-old election promise to cover costs of PSA screening. They recall, I recall, former Premier Binghetti on local radio saying it would be covered, and while I've warned them about the Liberal Government's track record on keeping promises, they're still waiting. Bottom line, Minister, new guidelines do nothing to change the fact that PSA testing is still in an important early detection tool, and Ontario men want the choice before examining options such as further observation or treatment. Minister, will you keep a liberal promise to fund PSA testing for men here in Ontario? Thank you, Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I should be very clear that we do offer PSA testing for men in this province that have symptoms that may be due to prostate cancer, and we also offer it free through OHIP, as I just mentioned, for individuals who require for monitoring, so perhaps they have had prostate cancer and been treated for it. What the member opposite is trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to move against the scientific evidence and do routine screening of individuals of men that have absolutely no symptoms of prostate cancer. As a physician, I understand where we need to provide this test, a PSA test for monitoring individuals that have or have had prostate cancer, or those who present symptoms that could be consistent. We offer that test, we offer it free of charge. Now, the test is available for those individuals who choose to pay for it if they are entirely asymptomatic from any symptoms that are consistent with prostate cancer. I would hope the member opposite would agree with that policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Labor. I think all members of this House would agree that the events of the past week in Ottawa have demonstrated once again the enormously important role that police and other first responders play in protecting our safety and our security. In the opinion of new Democrats, there would be no better way for this House to show its gratitude and respect for those first responders than to pass my bill to on post-traumatic stress disorder and the WSIB. If passed, the presumptive legislation would mean that it would be presumed that frontline responders suffering from PTSD acquired the illness on the job and therefore are eligible for WSIB benefits. Will this government commit to passing presumptive legislation with regards to PTSD now so that our first responders get the help they need immediately? Thank you, Speaker. Let me thank the member for the courtesy. She's extended by asking this question. I think it's a question that's of interest to all members of this House, and I think we all agree that we owe to our first responders our best efforts when it comes to putting the best legislation in place to deal with the emerging issue of post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health in general in the workplace. What we've done in the past 24 months is we've had a roundtable at the Ministry of Labor. We bought all the first responders together. We bought our people from policing, firefighting, emergency medical services, transit services, healthcare services including nurses. They've given us their best advice as to how to deal with PTSD. I agree that dealing with the WSIB component of that is a major part of that, and I commit to working with you to make sure we implement the best possible. Thank you, Supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And back to the Minister. He heard from all of those first responders that their major demand is exactly this presumptive legislation. So I'm going to ask again on their behalf, our first responders need presumptive legislation passed now, not more roundtables, not just a conference in 2015. So I ask again, will the government commit today to passing presumptive legislation with regards to PTSD for first responders? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you again to the member from Parkdale High Park for her supplementary. What I will commit to, Speaker, is to investigating every possible way of addressing this. There are other jurisdictions in Canada, for example, that have a different way of dealing with this. Alberta, for example, I think has made some changes as late as 2012 and the way that we deal with it. We're taking a very, very serious look at what you proposed in Bill 2, but let me tell you what we are doing. We've committed about four and a half million dollars to the OPP to deal with mental health issues. The Office of the Fire Marshal is now providing PTSD training to all its fire investigators. The Ontario Fire College is also implementing a mental health awareness course. So, Speaker, I think we all have a role to play in this. I commit to the member, I commit to this House, that we're going to do the best possible for the people that protect us. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Wellness. Minister, we are all aware of the population of our seniors, that it's growing very rapidly. One of our government's top priorities is ensuring that our seniors are living healthier, safer and more secure lives. However, in light of yesterday's fire and evacuation of Fairview Lodge in Whitby, we know about the need for long-term care homes to meet the highest safety standards, including the mandatory sprinkler systems. I know that we've committed to helping in our budget to providing operators accelerate their redevelopment. I'd like to know from the Minister what she is doing to follow up on this very important commitment. Thank you, Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Response School for long-term care. Thank you, Speaker, and thanks to the member from Kitchener Center for this very important and timely question. I'd like to begin by saying our thoughts are with the families and residents, all 192 residents of Fairview Lodge. I'd also like to begin by thanking the staff and first responders who worked so hard and so swiftly to ensure the safety of all 192 residents in yesterday's fire at Fairview Lodge. We were relieved to learn that all residents have been evacuated without injury, and the Ministry is working closely with the Linn and CCAC to ensure residents remain safe and cared for. Speaker, Ontario was the first province to make sprinklers mandatory in existing licensed long-term care homes. Now we have committed to redeveloping older homes to ensure they meet modern standards of safety and comfort, and that is why this morning I was at the OLTC Ontario Long-Term Care Association's false symposium to talk about our plan for redevelopment which I'll discuss in the supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. I'm very pleased to hear that the Minister is moving forward with this very important budget commitment. I know that this government has already had lots of good news to report on long-term care homes. Like increasing funding by 86% since 2003, like funding over 8,000 new full-time frontline workers, and we've opened more than 10,000 new long-term care beds, but this new commitment to push ahead with the redevelopment of 30,000 beds over 10 years is very ambitious. So what is the Minister doing to make sure that this very aggressive redevelopment stays on track? Thank you, Minister. And thanks again to the member for that supplementary. I'd like to begin by saying that this morning I was at the Ontario Long-Term Care Association's false symposium where we officially announced that we will be moving forward with redevelopment of 30,000 beds and 300 homes. Over the summer, I've had the opportunity to visit a number of long-term care facilities because I believe direct engagement is a great approach to transforming the sector, and this is what underlies our approach to redevelopment. We are bringing forward these changes after consultations with key stakeholders in the sector. We listened, and now we are ready to take the next step to ensure successful redevelopment. For example, we will be increasing the construction funding subsidy by up to $4.73 per resident per day. We have also extended the maximum LTC home license from 25 years to 30 years, and I look forward to a very successful redevelopment. Thank you. Thank you, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. When it comes to the Pan Parapan Am Games, your government has said the games are expected to attract more than 250,000 tourists. But in a recent report released by the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, it says that they only expect 10% of attendees will require hotel accommodation. Minister, can you explain the large discrepancy between your numbers and the industry's projections? I'd like to thank the member for the question. There's something incredible taking place in this province, and there's a spirit that has captured this province for the panic. The member from Chatham Kent Essex will come to order, please. In fact, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the University of Toronto, and they have a new stadium, the Gold Ring Stadium, that will host basketball and volleyball during the Pan Am Games. It will host volleyball and basketball during the games as a test venue. In fact, two-thirds of that money was raised by the local community and the Gold Ring family. Our government put in one-third of that money, and it's an incredible testament to what is happening in this province. We are going to have 250,000 people from across the Americas and across this country visit Ontario next year. I appreciate that. Supplementary. Well, Minister, I mean really, put the pom-poms away. It shows that a significant component of all attendees will be local or regional. This means that the people in Ontario will not only be stuck with the bill of the games themselves, but it will not be the international tourism draw you are selling it as it is. So, Minister, we are now less than a year away from the games. They are supposed to be a way to showcase Ontario to an international audience. The games will create only 0.7% impact for the hotel industry. How are we going to showcase Ontario when nobody wants to come? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's interesting. On this side of the house and right across this province, people are standing behind the Pan Am Games. And it's that party opposite that constantly continues to put down our athletes. In fact, the critic on the opposite side said, these were second tier games and that no one should be cheering for these games. We are going to cheer for our athletes. We're going to cheer for Ontario. We're going to cheer for Canadians. And we believe the 7,000 athletes that will be here, the 23,000 volunteers, the 15 new builds and 10 new facilities are a testament to the investment we've made on this side of the house and on terrible use in what we're doing. And they stand behind what these games are. Mr. Speaker, please. Thank you. New question. A member from Welling. My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. People in my riding are worried that 75 non-profit long-term care beds at the Niagara Health System will be sold off to a private operator looking to turn a profit. The Liberals have a record of privatizing health services every time they get a chance, but in Welling we believe that quality health care for our seniors should come before profits. I wrote the Minister three weeks ago asking for a guarantee that these non-profit beds would not be sold off to the highest corporate bidder, but I've heard nothing but silence from this Minister. So I'm asking again, will the Minister commit today to stop the sale of Welling's long-term care beds to a for-profit operator? Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for the question I want to assure her that we're committed to making Ontario the best place for seniors to age, and that includes ensuring that our long-term care facilities are the best facilities. And I also want to reassure the member opposite that indeed that the not-for-profit sector plays a very important role when it comes to running long-term care homes. They bring a particular lens that is very, very valuable, and I can assure her that working with the long-term care, working with the non-profit sector in the long-term care sector continues to be a priority. Thank you. Well, this Liberal government has actually been working with the Niagara Health System in secret to actually sell off these beds. Offers from well-respected non-profit operators in my municipality have been made and rejected. The people of Welling do not want to lose our 75 long-term care beds at our local hospital for a private for-profit scheme cooked up in the back rooms of the Ministry. This is not open and transparent. We don't want Welling to be another failed experiment in privatization that reduces quality of care to our seniors. Will the Minister make it crystal clear today that he will use his authority under the Long-Term Care Homes Act to step in and reject any proposed sale of Welling's non-profit long-term care beds to the for-profit sector? Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Speaker. I don't know why the member can't take yes for an answer. I said we are committed to ensuring that we have a robust not-for-profit long-term care sector in the province. I also want to talk about what a very important announcement that we made today that speaks to the importance that we place to the long-term care sector, and that is the redevelopment of 30,000 beds and 300 homes. This is going to be one of the largest redevelopment projects for the long-term care sector, including the not-for-profit sector. I look forward to working with you to making sure that we have a robust for-profit and a robust not-for-profit long-term care sector. Thank you. Any questions? The member from Ottawa or East. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Associate Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking with members from the Orleans Chamber of Commerce and local representative from CFIB, they've expressed concern about the impact of our Ontario retirement pension plan on small business. Many businesses I have spoken with do acknowledge that we have an under-saving problem. They know that Ontarians are not saving enough for retirement. In the long run, we know that this will be bad for Ontarians and bad for business. I also understand that our government has been working with businesses and taking several steps to ensure that we support small and businesses as we move forward with the implementation of the Ontario retirement pension plan. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please inform the House what specific steps our government has taken to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are able to plan and adapt as we move forward? Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Associate Minister. Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the Honourable Member from Ottawa or Orleans for her question. Mr. Speaker, the Ontario retirement pension plan is an investment in a secure retirement future for all Ontarians. That's not just individuals but businesses as well. Without action today on retirement security, this has the potential to stagnate growth and create economic uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, the cost of inaction is far too high. We need to take leadership now. That's why we're taking steps to help businesses plan, including introduction in 2017 to coincide with reductions in EI premiums. Employers will be enrolled in stages starting with the largest employers. Contributions will be phased in over two years. I've also been working and listening with businesses, including several meetings with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and local chambers and other business groups. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with businesses to minimize the short-term impact and help them plan for the implementation of the EI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for that response. My constituents in Ottawa Orleans will be pleased to learn about our government, what our government is doing to help businesses across the province plan for the introduction of the Ontario retirement pension plan. Mr. Speaker, again to the Associate Minister of Finance, we know that the Ontario retirement pension plan is an enhancement to our economy in the long run. The ORPP, however, is not being introduced in isolation. This is just one of the ways in which our government is helping to grow our economy and create a competitive business climate. Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, could you please inform the House what else our government is doing to promote our province continued economic competitiveness? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again to the Honourable Member from Ottawa Orleans for the question, our government is continuing to work to strengthen our economy today while making the necessary decisions to ward off problems we see on the horizon. Since the recession, our government has created over half a million net new jobs. In September alone, we saw an increase of 24,700 jobs across the province. The Premier and all my colleagues are working very hard to foster a competitive business climate and promote Ontario's continued economic growth. We've introduced several business tax reforms that will deliver over $9 billion in tax cuts annually to business and enhance Ontario's competitiveness, such as the HSD, eliminating capital tax, and cutting corporate income tax rates for small and large businesses. We've also eased the regulatory burden on businesses by removing 80,000 regulatory requirements. These reforms are positioning Ontario as one of the most attractive business locations in the industrialized world for new business investment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question for the Minister of Education. Minister, by now you know from both the general public and the ombudsman that your ministry has done a terrible job in the oversight of the Ontario daycare system. Even Bill Tan is seriously flawed with many loopholes because you tried to get it out in front of the ombudsman's report. Tens of thousands of private daycare spaces will be eliminated without any consultation whatsoever with the private daycare operators. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point clear that the private daycare operators have no problem with licensing, oversight, or a registry. So, Minister, will you stand in the House today and agree that you will allow province-wide committee hearings after second reading debate? Yes, thank you. And we keep hearing these references to the damage that Bill Tan is going to do and what our transformation is going to do. But I would point out that the ombudsman in his report, in fact, congratulated our ministry for working with his staff. And he said, here's 113 recommendations. And, obviously, 113 recommendations. Bill Tan, actually, is the response to 35 of them. And the changes that we've made to our enforcement protocols addresses another 60. So, in fact, 95 of the recommendations by the ombudsman's own accounting have already been addressed by my ministry. Minister, private daycare operators are being treated like criminals by you and your ministry. Rallies protesting your flawed bill are taking place and more will be organized. And we'll be in many of your writings with the rallies, okay? Over 1,500 people signed an online petition protesting your bill in just over three hours on Sunday. Bill Tan is a disaster and must be amended. For the sake of fairness and transparency, this bill must be properly traveled and consulted. For the sake of small operators, their families and the economy material, plus tens of thousands of children, will you please agree to province-wide hearings? All your hearings can be completed by family day in mid-February. After a decade of lack of oversight, surely we can delay Bill Tan seven weeks to get the bloody thing right. Q and Speaker, I make absolutely no apology for following the ombudsman's recommendation and actually creating a dedicated enforcement team that for the first time in the history of Ontario will actually have the power to do something when they find somebody who's violating the rules. For the first time in the history of Ontario, our inspectors will have the authority to impose a fine if somebody breaks the law. They won't actually have to go to court now to shut down a childcare where there's a threat to children's health and safety. They'll be able to close it down without actually going to court to get an injunction. I make no apology for putting those rules in place and the ombudsman agrees with all those actions we have taken. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-term Care. Yesterday, the minister was proud to mention that Ontario has 25 nurse practitioner-led clinics, but he didn't mention that his Liberal government limits the capacity of this clinic resulting in weightless and delays for patient. He didn't mention that the Liberal discouraged specialists from accepting patients referred by nurse practitioner, and he refused to mention that huge barriers prevent nurse practitioner from working to their full scope, such as ordering x-ray, performing tests as simple as urinalysis, or to prescribed control substances. I'm really delighted that so many nurse practitioners joined us today at Queen's Park, but it's also important to deliver a reality check. You see, speakers, those measures won't cost the government anything. They are 100% within the minister's power, and they will save our system's money. Question is simple. What is he waiting for? Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, and it gives me the opportunity as well to welcome our nurse practitioners here today. They contribute as we know. Well, let me put it this way, we're so proud that, in fact, it was in Sudbury, as the member opposite knows, I think in 2007, that the first of 25 nurse practitioners led clinics in this province open. And I think in that first year, 2,000 patients were registered at that one clinic alone. And what we've seen since that time is a, I would call it, dramatic expansion and an appropriate use of our health resources to ensure that our nurse practitioners, as we should for nurses across this province, are able to work to their full scope of practice. And there are particular areas of the province where their service, the provision of the services that they provide, are even more vital because of the challenges that are faced by local communities. Thank you, supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. The minister continued to speak glowingly about nurse practitioners led clinic, and we all agree they expend access to primary care for Ontarian. But that can't happen without a recruitment strategy to fix the damage caused by some of this government's policy. Yes, Speaker, this government froze the pay of nurse practitioners who works in primary care, who works in those nurse practitioner led clinic. They have stood by our nurse practitioner while they receive some of the lowest pay throughout our country. And they've watched 20% of position in primary care go unfulfilled because of opportunities can be found elsewhere. That's no way to expend public access to high quality primary care. Will the minister commit to a real recruitment and retention strategy to attract and keep primary care nurse practitioners in Ontario? I think about a week ago to address about 900 staff that work in our family health teams across the province, and I specifically spoke to this challenge that they are facing. And it's not specific to our family health teams, but the recruitment and retention of vital health personnel. We are working diligently on this specific issue. We're also, Mr. Speaker, working on scope of practice for our nurses, including our nurse practitioner led clinics and our nurse practitioners. I believe strongly that we should work with our healthcare specialists, including our nurse practitioners to allow them to work to the full abilities that they were trained for. I think we should aim for nothing less, and it makes for a stronger, better healthcare system. We are working with our nurses, including our nurse practitioners, to expand their scope of practice and their ability, for example, to prescribe medications in order more tests. Thank you. New question. The member from Ottawa South. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Attorney General. I know that in our province, our justice system has two official languages, French and English. In my writing of Ottawa South, I receive members of my writings who share certain concerns with respect to the challenges that they are facing in the legal system of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney General commit the activity of her ministry with respect to access to legal services for the French-speaking members of our province? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member of Ottawa South for his excellent French and his support for Francophonie. So the excellent report with respect to access to justice in French of the consultation committee led by Judge Paul Roulot and has allowed us to address the loopholes which exist and to establish a strategy to move forward in French-speaking Ontario. So I'm very happy to be able to confirm that today at the legislative assembly, the minister will in effect launch a pilot project of one year which will address the issues with respect to lawyers and legal services in French language. And this pilot project will occur in Ottawa. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson? Mr. Baker? Mr. Baker? Mr. Baler? Mr. Ballard? Mr. Don? Mr. Don? Ms. Hogart? Ms. Hogart? Ms. Kuala? Ms. Kuala? Ms. Madonna Long? Ms. Mollie? Ms. Mollie? Ms. Martin? Ms. Ms. Mrs. McGarry? Ms. McGarry? Ms. McMahon? Ms. McMahon? Mr. Milchin? Mr. Milchin? Ms. Nadu Harris? Ms. Nadu Harris? Mr. Pots? Mr. Pots? Mr. Wineauldi? Mr. Wineauldi? Ms. Verneel? Ms. Verneel. All those opposed, will the rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk. Mr. Clark? Mr. Clark? Mr. Arna? Mr. Arna? Mr. Harneman? Mr. I'm jelly not to tabby tabby miss Sattler Sattler mr. Nattishak do not a shot Armstrong his arms strong this fight this fight this forester this forester mr. Mantha mr. Mantha to Hatfield this campbell this Campbell mr. Gates gates miss Gretzky this Gretzky to Chimino mr. Chimino miss French miss French the eyes are 51 the nays are 38 the eyes being 51 the nays being 38 I declare the motion carry until 3 p.m. this afternoon