 I will make a last call for introduction of guests. Seeing none, it's therefore time for our question period, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I read a headline and a story that left a knot in the pit of my stomach. The headline read, I quote, Mother demands answers after son, eight, put in restraints and injected on the first day of school. A young Toronto boy on the first day of school was taken to the hospital in the back of a police car alone. The young boy was placed in restraints and then the boy was injected with a sedative. The boy was eight years old, injected with a sedative and shackled to a bed at a hospital. That is disgusting and unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, how does something like that happen in Ontario? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's important that every student in our school system has access to the supports that they need. The priority for school boards and for the Ministry of Education is the safety of all students. In the situation that the member opposite has raised, this is not a position that I'm in that I'm going to comment specifically on that case, other than to say that it is my understanding that the parent and the school board have been in communication, in contact, and that they are working on ensuring that the student has the supports that they need to attend school, and that is happening, Mr. Speaker. So I want the House to know that the safety of all students is a priority. Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister. I can only imagine the fear of this young boy being placed in the back of a police car alone, taken away from school by himself. And when the young boy's mother made it to the hospital, he pleaded with her. He said, I quote, please, Mummy, get them off me. They're too tight. I want everyone in the chamber to imagine if this was your nephew, if this was your child, your son. No parent should ever have to hear an eight-year-old child plead with them to have her strengths removed in the hospital. And the Minister says, well, they've been in contact with the family. We need better than that. It's absolutely gutting to hear a story in a no manner in which our students should be handled in our schools. Mr. Speaker, how will this government, without speaking to the specific case, how will they ensure us and guarantee that no other child in Ontario will be shackled and sedated by going to school? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to comment on the actions of hospital staff. That's not something that I can do. I know that as it relates to the student, as of September of the 15th, the student has been reintegrated into school and that the school and the parents and the board are working together on this matter. So that is the focus, is to have schools that are accepting and welcoming of students of all abilities, Mr. Speaker. We are very committed to this and providing the supports in our school system for students with special needs, for students who have mental health needs, Mr. Speaker. We are providing the assistance and the supports for all of our students. We are working together to make those necessary investments, Mr. Speaker, so that students can have every opportunity to succeed in our schools. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the minister. The young boy's mother has said that her son is on waiting lists for Blue Hills Child and Family Center, the Kindergarten Child and Family Services, and the York Center. She's been told that waiting will likely be a very long year. She's quoted as saying we need less wait lists because an eight-year-old needs help now. A year from now there's so much more damage that could be done. Are we going to be looking at more incidents like this or on the worst extreme him actually hurting himself? That's the mother's plead to the minister. That's the mother's plead to the province. We can't afford a year for her son to wait or hundreds of thousands of others. We need to make sure this is dealt with. Mr. Speaker, it's time this government makes real progress to slash these wait lists. Will they do that? Can we have a commitment from the minister that these wait lists, that this leaving this boy abandoned, will they slash these wait lists? Thank you. To the minister of children and youth services. To the minister of children and youth services. To thank the member opposite for the question. We take mental health when it comes to young people in this province quite serious. In fact, for the last couple of years we've built a new strategy, a new approach to looking for ways to eliminate wait lists because we know the complexities that young people are going through today are very different from when we were young. In fact, very different from a decade ago. Mr. Speaker, that's why we put in place Bill 89. Bill 89 looks at reorganizing mental health delivery across this province by setting up 33 lead agencies in all of our ridings. And Mr. Speaker, here's the interesting point. The member opposite, the leader of the opposition voted against Bill 89. And we still don't even know why he voted against Bill 89. The member from Renfrew will come to order. The member's time is up. It was already up. New question, the leader of the third party. Leader of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. QP announced this morning they're appealing the ruling in their lawsuit against the government. That, of course, would be the lawsuit that alleges the sale of Hydro-1 was motivated by improper and ulterior purposes. QP alleges that it does not benefit the people of Ontario. And a direct quote, this is about lining the pockets of political cronies on Bay Street and funding money into party coffers. Mr. Speaker, 80% of the province is against this fire sale of Hydro-1. Was the government, according to QP, motivated by improper and ulterior purposes? Thank you. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister, one of the government's defences was that they were going to be using the fire sale of Hydro-1 for infrastructure. What's really interesting is that the member for Dufferin-Caladin exposed yesterday that 20% of the infrastructure budget was not used. That added up to $3.3 billion. Coincidentally, those $3.3 billion is pretty close to what the Hydro-1 sale was supposed to net for infrastructure. An interesting coincidence. So my question is pretty simple. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, why sell Hydro-1 for apparent infrastructure money if the Liberals weren't going to use it? Mr. Speaker, this province, under this government over the last 10 years has contributed more to our infrastructure spend than any other government's combined under that history. We have put in our budget $190 billion over the next 13 years. That member opposite voted against those measures, Mr. Speaker. The law case that he makes reference to has been dismissed by the courts without merit. He knows that and he's trying to infer something that he knows is not true. What we're doing is investing, stimulating growth, improving our economy, and we're balancing the books, Mr. Speaker, and we are making the investments necessary for our future competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance, and I did not get a response on why the Hydro-1 fire sale funds was not used on infrastructure. You know, Fred Hand from QP had a pretty good quote. He said, the case is more about the sale of Hydro-1. It's about the government's responsibility to act in the best interest of its citizens. When a government abandons that responsibility and does sort of the benefit of their political party, they must be held accountable. And QP is right. There must be accountability. So Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that the sale of Hydro-1 was not about the best interest of the province of Ontario. It was about the Liberals trying to find funds, trying to find funds to make up for their promises that they can't honour. This was not about the best interest of Ontario. It was about the best interest of the Ontario Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, we are repurposing some of our assets as all governments do over the course of their mandates to try to ensure that we invest, and most appropriately, those measures for the benefit of our economy. That isn't the best interest of Ontarians. Ontarians will remain the largest shareholder of a much more productive organization reinvesting those proceeds into infrastructure. Member from Bruce Gray Owen Sound, come to order. Finish, please. We established a Trillium Trust to ensure that all those proceeds, dollar for dollar, gets earmarked specifically for those investments. The member opposite knows that, and he voted against those measures, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue to work in the best interest of Ontarians, and that, Mr. Speaker, is what's important. And we are looking long-term, and we're not making these election cycle decisions that this member opposite who has no plan, Mr. Speaker, he's offered nothing in return. New question to the leader of the third party. This is to the acting premier. This summer a woman named Mira came to Queen's Park to tell the Liberal government about a tragic set of circumstances of her mother's experience in long-term care. Mira told us about finding her mum after almost 17 hours in bed. No one had fed her. No one had helped her reach the bathroom. No one had even shifted her body so she didn't get bed sores. Can the acting premier confirm that seniors being left in beds without any care at all for 17 hours running will be part of the scope of the Wettlaufer Inquiry? Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question. That experience is absolutely unacceptable. And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker of Justice, Galees believes that that issue or issues circumstances similar to it need to be part of the public inquiry. She has the full scope to do that, it's within her terms of reference. We specifically, categorically left the terms of reference and her brief broad enough understanding her expertise and being confident in her ability, we have given her the latitude to pursue the inquiry in whatever direction she feels is most appropriate to ensure the safety and security and well-being of residents in long-term care homes in this province. So again, Mr. Speaker, we have spoken about this many, many times. She has the terms of reference in the latitude to pursue this if she deems it appropriate. Supplementary. Speaker, Margo lives in Windsor. She wrote to MPP Hatfield's office because she's concerned about her dad. He suffers from Alzheimer's and he lives in long-term care. Margo's dad sometimes wanders, maybe these members across the way, Speaker, don't care about Margo and her dad, but new Democrats do care about Margo and her dad. He suffers from Alzheimer's and he lives in long-term care. Her dad sometimes wanders out of the care facility, past a rarely staffed front desk. It's particularly bad over weekends and holidays, and the home says they can't afford to staff the front desk 24-7. Can the Acting Premier confirm that the staffing levels, particularly at the front entrances to long-term care facilities, will be part of the wetlocker inquiry? Well, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the example of the resident with high needs because of the presence of Alzheimer's. It's a form of dementia, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I find it unusual and curious that the third party voted against our $100 million investment in dementia in this province. I find it curious that the third party voted against an additional $10 million into behavioural supports Ontario to provide care in long-term care homes, specifically tailored to those complex high needs individuals, including individuals with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. That's why I find it curious that they voted against a 2% increase to the funding for long-term care homes, and $80 million increased this year alone. Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a lot more work to be done to support our residents in long-term care homes. That's why we're making these investments. Investments they voted against. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. I find it curious that the Minister of Health refused to have a broadly scoped public inquiry to address all of the problems in long-term care. That's what's curious, Mr. Speaker. I was in Woodstock a few weeks ago meeting with a group of people who all have loved ones in long-term care. At the meeting I was handed an internal memo from a local long-term care home, which gave guidelines on how to deal with staff who called in sick to the facility. The memo says that being short 50% staff on any given shift is acceptable. It's considered acceptable by the management of that long-term care home. Totally acting premier guarantee that the wet-law for inquiry will look into long-term care home practices related to staffing levels and procedures for what to do when staff can't make it in for their shift. Thank you. Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we intentionally drafted the terms of reference abroad so that the justice would be able to have the latitude she felt was important to address the issues that Ontarians are asking for. But, Mr. Speaker, it's important that the public also understand that since 2014 we have been inspecting 100% of long-term care homes in this province. When you look at the non-compliances, Mr. Speaker, in 2016 we actually saw an 18% decrease in the non-compliances. In fact, there were 12% fewer compliance orders issued in 2016, so our inspections are having an important impact. And in fact, since 2014, the average number of compliance orders issued during an annual inspection have been reduced by over 50%. Our investments are making a difference. Our inspections are making a difference. We're continuing to work on this challenging issue because we are committed to the safety and security and well-being of Ontarians in long-term care homes. Thank you. New questions? My next question is also for the acting premier speaker. You know what I don't get? I don't get why the Minister of Health isn't the one who needs to identify what the problems are in long-term care and then put it up to Ms. Julesi. It should be done by the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario, the person responsible for long-term care here in the province of Ontario. Not, Mr. Zinchard, Speaker. On June 19th, I received a letter from a woman whose 91-year-old father was admitted to the Georgian Bay Hospital. Long story short, Speaker, his conditions worsened in that hospital. And he was not sent to long-term care, even though he couldn't be taken care of at home. Why? Because this government doesn't allow people to move straight from hospital into long-term care. Will this be dealt with by the inquiry, Speaker? Deputy Premier. Minister of Health for long-term care. Minister of Health, long-term care. Mr. Speaker, I'm confident in the work that Justice Gilles will be undertaking on behalf of Ontarians. And I also believe and am confident that Ontarians want this government and this inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened in Woodstock and in London and in the surrounding communities where additional assaults took place. This was a horrible tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it's unfortunate I have done everything humanly possible to avoid this becoming a partisan issue, despite the approach taken by the third party, Mr. Speaker. Ontarians want answers to how Elizabeth Wettlaufer was possibly able to get away with the murders and the assaults that she was. We owe them those answers. That's the focus of the inquiry. That's what Ontarians have asked for, but Mr. Speaker, we've intentionally left the terms broad to give her the latitude to take the approach that she feels will ensure the safety and security of Ontarians. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, right now in Ontario there are over 30,000 people on a waiting list for long-term care. That's 30,000 families who are left dangling, not knowing whether or not their loved ones will get the care that they need. Can the acting Premier guarantee that the 30,000 person waiting list for long-term care in Ontario will be a part of the Wettlaufer inquiry? Thank you. Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, I've acknowledged many times that there is more work to be done. As our population ages and as we are faced with an aging population that also has very complex needs as well, and we're seeing that in our long-term care homes. That's why we're making investments in behavioural supports so that we've got specialized teams in long-term care homes that are able to provide that highest quality and knowledgeable care and support to individuals with dementia, with Alzheimer's, with other complex needs. We have more than doubled our budget in long-term care, Mr. Speaker, and we've made an important investment of 80 million additional dollars this year alone in a number of categories and areas. We're committed to redeveloping 30,000 beds. We've built 10,000 new beds since coming into office. We've already redeveloped 13,000. Of course, there's more work to be done. This is my highest priority within the ministry when it comes to long-term care is making sure that these individuals are safe and secure and well supported. Final supplementary. A frail elderly woman left in bed for 17 hours, a senior with Alzheimer's leaving his long-term care home unnoticed and unattended. Long-term care homes that accept 50% of staff capacity as safe. A daughter worried about her father being forced to return home to wait, even though the doctor said that he can't be left alone at home, and 30,000 families hoping that their loved ones will get into a long-term care home right now. This situation is dire, and yet the Liberal government still refuses to find and fix the problems. I won't be acting premier, not leave things to chance that Justice Galazi might perhaps look at some of these issues and instead expand the scope of the wet-loft or inquiry on his own like he should do to ensure that all of these systemic issues are dealt with, all of these issues that are causing so much pain and confusion and difficulty for our loved ones and their families are actually dealt with in the scope of the inquiry speaker. Just do it. Mr. Speaker, by her tone and increasing rhetoric, it appears that the leader of the third party may not have confidence in Justice Galazi, in terms of her ability to lead this, and I know she doesn't want to hear that, but she came dangerously close in her question. I infer that she may not want a public inquiry at all, Mr. Speaker. Ontarians want to get to the bottom of what happened in Woodstock, in London, and in the surrounding communities. We owe that to the parents, the brothers, the sisters, the loved ones, those that have been so badly affected by this tragedy. That is the central focus of this public inquiry. It has to be. Those are the answers that we need to reach. They want this inquiry faster, but they keep loading it up and loading it up so that it will take years to address it. Member from Hamilton, East Tony Creek, Minister of Health, long-term care. New question. Member of Kitchener, Alden. Hi, Kitchener. Thank you. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Speaker, this morning we heard the personal trauma faced by 19-year-old Leela Atar, and Leela has joined us today in the members gallery, and I thank you, Leela, for joining us. She endured a near-death experience after taking a percassette that a pill-press operator laced with fentanyl. Leela, other victims, their families and police officers are calling on governments to restrict illegal use of pill-presses, churning out counterfeit and not only deadly pills onto our streets. While the Minister has called a pill-press ban over simplistic, in dealing with opiates, those directly impacted by counterfeit laced drugs understand it's a key step to address this deadly threat at its source. Speaker, today the Minister and the Liberals will have a choice with the debate of the Illegal Pill-Press Act. Join us to take these death-dealing machines, already in Ontario, off our streets, or allow them to continue tearing families apart. What will the Minister do? Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question. I look forward to the debate, and I want to acknowledge Leela in the gallery as well, and quite frankly, for her courage in coming forward and telling her story. It can't for anybody. It's unimaginable, but it must be incredibly difficult to demonstrate that courage, so thank you. Mr. Speaker, when I said that banning pill-presses in an Ontario context was overly simplistic, I meant that in the overall context of addressing the opioid crisis, the public health crisis in this province. And I also mentioned that, as the member opposite knows, the federal government has already passed legislation in Bill C-37 that includes a provision that explicitly prohibits and renders illegal unregistered importation of designated devices such as pill-presses. And encapsulators, it's actually broader perhaps, that may be used in the illicit manufacture of narcotics. I understand why that party is solely focused, it seems, on the law and order aspect. It needs to be a broad comprehensive response to the public health crisis, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. Yes, thank you, Speaker. And we acknowledge the actual role the federal government has taken on Bill C-37. They acknowledge the importance of the detriment that these pill-presses are in fact having on our communities right across Canada, but of course, that's only the importation fact. We're talking about the possession, because we know they're here right now in the province of Ontario, and so I'm going to make, of course, this question over simplistic. As the minister feels about the United Call of Victims, their families, police officers, and myself to ban pill-presses churning out these counterfeit opiates on our streets. So does the minister support getting illegal opiates off our streets through penalties and jail for illegal pill manufacturers for possessing pill manufacturers, or is he just soft on crime? Good start. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. It was almost good. It was almost a good question. So it's critically important that we address the public health crisis before the opioid crisis in this province, in this country, from a multifaceted approach. And there, clearly, there is a law and order component to this. Nobody can deny that, and we need to do everything we can to address that. However, I'm disappointed that this is the only suggestion that the party opposite has brought forward to a crisis where we, since last summer, have been providing naloxone across the province free of charge, more than 1,500 pharmacies, where we're now distributing it at the rate of 8,000 a month through our public health units, Mr. Speaker, where we're making fentanyl testing strips available to our supervised injection sites and the pop-up sites so that those users can test for the presence of fentanyl to save lives, Mr. Speaker. Any questions? A member from Niagara Falls? Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. There are close to 3,000 cami auto workers who have been on strike in Ingersoll since last week. I visited them last night on the Pickett line. These skilled auto workers are on strike because they need the company to commit to them to keep the equinox here in Ontario instead of moving production to Mexico. It is obvious that we do not have an auto strategy, which means companies across Ontario can close and move production to Mexico simply to maximize profits. That hurts workers and communities that they live in. My question is, these Unifor workers are fighting to keep jobs here in Ontario. Why isn't this Liberal government fighting as hard as they are? Thank you. Deputy Premier. Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Let me start off, Mr. Speaker, by taking this opportunity to urge both sides, General Motors and Unifor, to redouble their efforts to very quickly reach a settlement. That is a very challenging situation because we know that not only are those workers impacted by being out of work at cami, there are ripple effects now starting to impact workers throughout our supply chain. So this is a very serious situation, one that we're following very closely. And of course, we're going to allow the collective bargaining process to unfold as it should, but we will definitely urge both parties to do their very best to as soon as possible reach a settlement to get these workers back to work. Now the member is absolutely wrong when he says we don't have an auto strategy. We have one of the most ambitious and aggressive auto strategies anywhere in the industrialized world. And in the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to talk about the great results we're getting from that strategy. Mr. Speaker, again to Deputy Premier. The CEO of GM made $22.6 million last year while demanding that workers freeze their wages, cut their benefits, cut their pensions and accept the two-tier wage system. Last year GM saw record profits, yet there are still those that fear that GM is going to move production of equinox out of the province of Ontario. Workers have had enough and they're fighting back. They want job security. And to know that these jobs will stay in Ontario, not only for themselves, but for their kids and their grandkids. There are over 15,000 more workers affected across the province, including St. Catlin's, including Niagara. If the Cammie jobs are lost, these jobs are lost too. And an auto strategy would recognize that. When is the Liberal government going to show auto workers that their jobs are important and fight along with them to keep these jobs right here in the province of Ontario? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've seen $2.6 billion invested in Ontario since the fall of 2016 alone, just in the auto sector, Mr. Speaker. That's 40,000 direct jobs that have been supported by those investments, 65,000 indirect jobs across this province out into the auto parts sector. Thousands of indirect jobs have been created because of our investments, Mr. Speaker, in Windsor. Both members know better than to use somebody's name. This House is respectful by saying their writing or their title. And also we could do without the heckling. Finish, Minister? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 2004, this government has invested $1.4 billion in the auto sector, leveraging $15.8 billion in private sector investment, helping to create... Thank you. New question, Member from Kitchener Center. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As the Minister knows, last week I was in Breslau to announce that our government is investing over $5 million in Conestoga meat packers through our Jobs and Prosperity Fund. This investment will not only help support the creation of 170 new jobs, but it's also going to enhance productivity and innovation at this great company to support export and revenue growth. As processors in Ontario add value to 65% of what is grown in the province, it's encouraging to see that our government is making these important investments in food and beverage manufacturers. This investment is strengthening companies like Conestoga and Ontario's pork value chain. Minister, by the way, you have a lot of fans there in Breslau at Conestoga meat packers. Could you please explain how our investment in companies like Conestoga is helping to build up Ontario's farm and food sector? Thank you. Mr. Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Fans of Peter Burrow and fans in Breslau is pretty good. I want to thank the Member from Kitchener Center for great questions this morning and her attendants at the International Palli Batch this week. Mr. Speaker, our government believes in making strategic investments in our farm and food sector, helping to grow this dynamic $37 billion industry. That's why in 2014 we launched the 10-year $400 million food and beverage growth front as part of our government's jobs and prosperity fund. By partnering with the food processing businesses, we're helping to keep our farm and food sector strong and helping to support good jobs in a thriving agriculture sector. Mr. Speaker had the opportunity on Monday morning to make a similar announcement as Sofita Foods' 8th and beautiful Mitchell, Ontario, where our government committed over $5 billion to support the creation of our 100 jobs industry. By investing in Sofita Foods, we'll help boost the Turkey supply chain to the profits of Ontario and build stronger communities in Mitchell and Dublin. On this side of the house, we... I say thank you. You stop. And I stand. You sit. Supplementary. Thank you for that answer. The member for Kitchener, Conestoga, was invited to this event. It's in his writing and it's disappointing that he didn't show up. I think it's important for us to demonstrate... Stop the call. Member from Lampton, come to order. The member from Kitchener Center knows better and shall not mention other writing businesses. So thank you for correcting it and withdraw. Thank you, Speaker. I withdraw. Carry on with your question. Speaker, I would like to say that I have noticed on many occasions when members of the opposition will point out when the Premier or cabinet ministers do not go to their writings. I know it's not appropriate for us to say that. I'm standing. The member is not helping herself. If it happens again, I'll pass your question. Ask your question. Thank you, Speaker. In today's Waterloo Region record in editorial states, government grants to privately owned enterprises are often controversial. But if the policy of the Ontario government is to support Ontario businesses, Conestoga Mika Packers is as worthy a recipient as you'll find. Minister, the opposition voted against our jobs and prosperity fund, and the opposition has been critical of our investments. Speaker, could the minister please share with members of this house where our government stands on supporting our food processing sector? Thank you very much. I want to thank the member from Kitchener Center for a follow-up question. Our government has a clear plan to create jobs and opportunities in the Territory's farm and food sector, a sector that employs, Mr. Speaker, over 800,000 people in this great province. From Breslau to Mitchell, we're making investments in companies so they can continue to grow and make the food and beverage products that people in this province enjoy every day. On this side of the house, we believe in providing supports needed for our manufacturers to compete in the 21st century. On this side of the house, we believe in providing companies with opportunities to become more productive and use innovative technology. We believe in making investments that will give our companies the tools to grow their exports and complete with brands around the world. Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to make investments in our food processing sector to help them scale up, export to more countries and make jobs available in our towns and centers. We look forward to making other way in advancements that will demonstrate our government's commitment to growing the food processing sector in the Territory. It's disappointing that the member from Nipissing continues to heckle when I actually call him to order. No question. The member from Lennick... Thank you. Letting him act on Linux. General, in June of 2012, Scott Johnson lost his life from a collapse of a stage at a Radiohead concert here in Toronto. The company and engineer were charged with 13 offenses alleging neglect. Yet once again, all charges were stayed due to egregious and excessive court delays. In a statement released to their millions of followers worldwide, the band said this decision offers no consolation, no closure or assurance that this kind of accident will not happen again, and that is an insult to the memory of Scott Johnson, his parents and their crew. Speaker, the rampant failings of our justice system at the hands of this government is attracting both international attention and universal condemnation. Speaker, is the minister so preoccupied giving liberal advice to his friends on trial that he can't perform his duty in the administration of justice? Oh, that's what it is. Well, thank you very much, Speaker. The member opposite raises a very important and serious issue. As we all know, last June, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a monumental decision called the Jordan Decision, where they have outlined very specific deadlines under which criminal cases have to be heard. That decision, Speaker, is a game changer in terms of how criminal justice should be done in not only the province of Ontario, but across the country. And, Speaker, we have responded to that challenge immediately after the Jordan Decision by adding new resources within our criminal justice system hiring 13 new judges, over 30 new assistant crown attorneys, and investing money in legal aid as well, not to mention support staff. But, Speaker, we have not stopped there. And in my supplementary, I will speak about the kind of structural changes that Ontario is driving with the federal government to ensure delays are prevented. Supplementary, Attorney General. And I will say that access to justice didn't just come along with the Jordan Decision. That is a longstanding constitutional obligation. The Attorney General is also charged with ensuring the proper administration of justice. Judge Ann Nelson makes it clear in her judgment that this result is a failure on the part of the administration of justice. She also notes that Mr. Johnson's family can justifiably complain that justice has not been done. There is a crisis in our courts, a crisis which is a direct result of this laxadaisical approach by this government that they've taken over the last decade. Speaker, both those seeking justice and those who serve our courts agree that the administration of justice is in disrepute and our courts cannot effectively deliver their mandate. Speaker, is it not time that we say enough is enough and have the minister apologize to the Johnson family and the people of Ontario for these failures? Thank you. Minister, Speaker, decisions like these are very difficult and that is why we are working very actively to make sure that we expedite our criminal justice system to make it more efficient. That's why, Speaker, Ontario has been the leading voice in the country in making the argument that we need to pay serious attention to the impact of Jordan Decision, that it is a game changer and we need to bring meaningful structural changes to our criminal code to make sure that our criminal justice system is effective and efficient and actually looks after the victims, their families and, of course, our communities. That is why just last week, Speaker, I was at the Federal Provincial and Territorial Meeting of Justice Ministers in Vancouver where Ontario took the lead in proposing reforms to the system. I hope the member opposite and the party opposite will support the government's position as to how we can reform our system to make it more effective. Thank you. Any questions? A member from Windsor to come see. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier. Good morning. People in Windsor are angry and disappointed with the government's response to the recent flooding disaster. The Minister of Municipal Affairs stood in his house and said that private insurance was readily available. He was wrong. The Insurance Bureau of Canada told him he was wrong. Some insurance companies no longer honor claims from people living in their flood-prone areas. The Disaster Recovery Assistance Plan doesn't cover sewer backups. Speaker, how will this government close the gap in coverage between private insurers and the government's disaster assistance recovery program? Excuse me, Deputy Premier. I'm Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Speaker, thank you very much. Thank you to the member for the question. Speaker, the program is obviously a Pan-Ontario program. I have activated the program in multiple municipalities over the course of the last 15 months or so. And I would tell you and I would tell the House and those that are interested in this file that the program is very well regarded. The reason that the program is well regarded and in place is because it helps people to recover from disasters where there are events that have occurred for which there is no private insurance available. And that is primarily, Speaker, over land flooding. Before I went out and made my visits over the last 15 months or before I went out very recently in the second Windsor event in the last 12 months, I insured from staff and my ministry that, in fact, insurance was available. So that's the information I've gotten back from my ministry. I didn't make that comment willy-nilly. I checked. They tell me there is. At the end of the day, Speaker, this is less about private insurance than it is about other things. And I'll speak more to that in the supplementary. Supplementary? Representatives of the Insurance Bureau were in my office on Monday saying insurance is not readily available in Windsor. And they said they told the minister that. Speaker, climate change is real. Extreme weather events are hitting all parts of Ontario. Natural disasters caused by heavy rains are occurring too frequently. This government is downloading the effects of climate change onto ordinary citizens. Speaker, some of my residents have gone through this twice within the past year, less than a year. When will the government update the coverage guidelines, especially for those that can no longer qualify for private insurance? Thank you. Minister? Speaker, when I was in Windsor and we had a press conference there, I mentioned as part of that press conference that we all have a role to play when it comes to dealing with these, unfortunately, more regular and more intense weather-related events. And in fact, I complimented the city of Windsor and other municipalities that already have programs in place that can directly affect and lessen the likelihood that they would be affected by these situations. The city of Windsor has programs in place and have had for some time. So there is work and options available to individual homeowners. I also said the municipality has responsibility when it comes to how we plan our communities. I said the province has a role to play when it comes to infrastructure funding. And obviously we have a fantastic record of demonstrating support for municipalities on infrastructure. And as well, I said the federal government through its national disaster mitigation program also has a role to play. As a group, we need to look more closely at this, Speaker, and perhaps over the coming years, programs may evolve. Thank you. Question, a number from Davenport. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And my question is for the minister of transportation. Speaker, I know that the minister has said many times, both in and outside of this house, that road safety is his top priority. But the fact of the matter is that there are still far too many collisions that result in serious injuries or fatalities on our roads. And far too often, the victim is a vulnerable road user, a pedestrian or cyclist who has little to no protection compared to those traveling in a car. And Speaker, a number of these fatalities have unfortunately occurred in my riding of Davenport. We need to take extra care to make sure this group of road users is safe, especially if we want to promote these active and environmentally friendly modes of transportation in Ontario. I know that there are many people in my community of Davenport who want to make the choice to bike or walk to work, but they want to know that they can do so safely. Speaker, would the minister please provide an update to this house on what his ministry is doing to make our roads safer than they are today for most vulnerable? Minister, transportation. Thanks very much, Speaker. I want to thank the member from Davenport for her question and for being a staunch advocate for helping us to understand the importance of making sure that we constantly improve road safety measures that we have, Speaker. Our government knows that whether you're in a vehicle on a bike or walking on the sidewalk, for example, Speaker, you deserve to be able to get from point A to point B safely at all times. That's why we've taken serious action over the last number of years to make sure that our roads are even safer, through strong legislation, public education, and ongoing work with our extraordinary road safety partners, including enforcement officers. But last fall and winter, Speaker, we saw a concerning increase in the number of serious and fatal injuries involving our most vulnerable road users. We knew then what we had to act and we have not been standing still. Our work over the last number of months has led us to the point where we are now able to introduce bold new measures that would have passed make our roads safer, especially for our seniors and our kids, Speaker. And I look forward to providing more details in my supplementary answer. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the minister for his answer. I'm pleased to hear that your ministry has been working hard on these various proposals that would keep our roads safer for everyone, but particularly are most vulnerable. However, with the federal legalization of cannabis less than a year away, we need to be ready to deal with the impact this will have on road safety in order to save lives and keep up our record of having among the safest roads in North America. I know that members of my community of Davenport are eager to hear that we have a plan in place to keep drug-impaired drivers off our roads through strong penalties. Speaker, through you to the minister, can you please provide more information on how these new proposed measures take into account additional road safety challenges that we can expect post-July 1st, 2018? Thank you, minister. Thanks very much, Speaker. Our proposed changes do in fact take into account the upcoming federal legalization of cannabis. So, for example, we're proposing zero tolerance for novice, young, and commercial drivers, as well as increased penalties for drivers who fail or refuse to take a sobriety test, Speaker. Beyond impaired driving, we are also proposing a comprehensive set of tools that would make our roads safer, including tougher penalties to combat distracted driving, increased penalties for drivers who fail to yield for pedestrians, and, Speaker, also, a brand-new offense, the stiffest penalty that would exist in the Highway Traffic Act of past. A new offense for careless driving, causing death or bodily harm, Speaker, and, if you'll permit me, I want to pay tribute to the current minister of tourism, culture, and sport, the member from Burlington, who has fought hard and long on these issues, and as a private member of brought forward legislation in 2016 to make this happen, Speaker, because of her advocacy, we're going to get it done. Thanks very much. Thank you. New question, the member from Burlington. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Energy. In January, this government rolled out another sneaky attack on families and businesses when they launched their cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme. Speaker, the Auditor General conducted a survey of Ontario's natural gas rate payers, and 89% of the respondents thought it important to disclose the impact and cost of cap-and-trade on natural gas bills. Speaker, today we will debate my common-sense legislation to make cap-and-trade a separate line item on natural gas bills. Speaker, my question is simple. Do the Liberals support transparency and accountability, or will the government continue hiding the cost of cap-and-trade on consumers' natural gas bills? Good question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The decision on how to present cap-and-trade on consumers' bills was made by the Ontario Energy Board, Mr. Speaker. And that's an independent arms-length regulator for the province's energy sector, Mr. Speaker. And it did so based on extensive consultations with consumers, utilities, and environmental stakeholders. Member from Renfrew and Nipissing Pembroke, second time. Here he is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Including, Mr. Speaker, over 40 written submissions. And in their decision, the Ontario Energy Board highlighted that cap-and-trade costs are a part of doing the business of delivering natural gas to homes and businesses. And to quote the board, Mr. Speaker, in the OEB's view, separating out cap-and-trade related costs as a light on them on the bill is inconsistent with the manner in which all other ongoing costs of operating the utility are reflected on the bill, Mr. Speaker. And I'll have more in the supplementary. Thank you, supplementary. Well, Speaker, back to the minister. I introduced Bill 146, the Transparency and Gas Pricing Act, and the hope of bringing greater accountability to the government's cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme. Speaker, my legislation will provide much-needed transparency to Ontario's taxpayers and ratepayers. Transparency that ratepayers in British Columbia and Quebec already enjoy at no cost to the government. Speaker, will the minister support my common-sense legislation to make cap-and-trade a separate line item on natural gas bills? And if not, why not? Good question. Thank you, Speaker. We all know where the common-sense revolution got us in the past, Mr. Speaker, and are actually going to continue to stand up for the people of Ontario, especially, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the OEB. And they know, Mr. Speaker, that the OEB regulates the natural gas sector in this province with a strong mandate to protect the public interest and ensure that consumers receive reliable, cost-effective natural gas service. Their decision on the presentation of cap-and-trade costs was made, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, after extensive consultation within this province. The opposition claims they support the independence of government agencies, and yet claims we should interfere with the OEB, in this case, simply because they don't like the decision, Mr. Speaker, just as the federal government can't dictate terms to the Supreme Court or to the Bank of Canada or expect that decisions will be in their favour. The Ontario Energy Board will undertake their due diligence and make independent decisions, Mr. Speaker. Question, the member from Nickelbelt. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the minutes of health and long-term care. Minister, my constituent has a kidney condition. It could be life-threatening, but it is definitely painful. Her specialist needs her to have a CAT scan before he can determine the best course of action for her condition. He referred her for a CAT scan in June, in July. She was informed that her appointment for her CAT scan is at the end of January 2018. Wow. Does the minister think that a six-month wait for a diagnostic test is putting patients first, and does it think that it would lead to good patient care? Thank you. Minister, health and long-term care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And of course, as minister, I leave it to our frontline healthcare professionals, our doctors, nurse practitioners, and others to make the right clinical decision. And if there is an urgency to getting a CT scan, I have no doubt that that CT scan can be provided on an urgent basis. However, we do make every effort to have the shortest or close to the shortest wait times in the entire country. And I'm happy to say when it comes to ultrasound and CT and MRI, we are either the shortest in the country or nearest to the shortest wait times for those procedures. We've made additional investments. In fact, the $7 billion of new funds that we put in this year's budget over the next three years for health care, a significant portion of that will go to further reduced wait times, including for diagnostic imaging like CTs and MRIs and the like. I don't know the circumstances. It seems like a long time. I would hope that the clinician involved is doing the right thing to make sure that that's getting that right time. Speaker, the average wait time he talks about applies to Southern Ontario at 50 days. In Northern Ontario, our average wait time is 167 days. Health Sciences North or hospital provide complex treatment to people all across the Northeast. Unfortunately, not only are wait times getting longer and longer. Health Sciences North, like most other large community hospital in our province, now has hallway medicine as the new normal. The Ontario Hospital Association is warning that overcrowding is leading to a crisis. Even our neonatal units are overcrowded and turning away our sickest of newborn babies. What will it take for this minister to admit that our hospital, who used to be the crown jewel of our healthcare system, are now dangerously close to the breaking point? Thank you, minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, this fiscal year we increased the budget of Health Sciences North by almost $6 million, Mr. Speaker. And again, in our budget, we allocated more than $500 million specifically for our hospitals, guaranteeing that every hospital would get at least a 2% increase across the province, but on average, the increase to the hospital operating budgets was 3.1%, Mr. Speaker. And we also allocated, which is unprecedented in the history of this province, $9 billion over the next 10 years. In addition to the 11 billion already committed for $20 billion in infrastructure investment, which includes expansion of hospitals, renovations of hospitals, and entirely new hospitals. So we're continuing to invest, whether it's in the operating costs, in reducing wait times, as I mentioned, $11 billion increasing the health budget over the next three years, including for CTs and MRIs and ultrasounds and those important diagnostic procedures. Here you go. Do you have a question for the members of Kingston and the island? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Sexual violence and harassment have a devastating impact on the lives of survivors and their families. We have made progress as a society when it comes to changing perceptions around these issues, but we all know that we have more work to do. The Globe and Mail's unfounded series earlier this year shone a spotlight on our country's police services and how cases have been handled. I know that there was a strong will from police services, community groups, and government to change things, but my question, Mr. Speaker, through you, is what actions have been taken by our government? Thank you, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Well, certainly, thank you very much for the member from Kingston and the island for that important question. First, I want to commend many of our police services for having taken immediate action on reviewing how they investigate sexual assault cases. However, I want to reserve special thanks to our province's largest police service, the OPP, for their leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the OPP announced that investigative officer will receive new comprehensive training, more supervision, and an external scrutiny from local survivors' support group. To ensure lasting change, a specialized group of senior officer will personally monitor all unresolved sexual assault cases. There will also be five regional review committee model on the highly successful... Answer. ...Kidelfia model, where advocates work with survivors and police to ensure thorough investigation. Mr. Speaker, we like the OPP approach. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would also like to thank the minister for her answer. I would also like to thank the OPP for their leadership on this very important matter. And I cannot do so also without acknowledging the Kingston Police Forces and the work that they have done as well in my riding of Kingston and the islands. How our law enforcement handles investigations surrounding sexual violence and harassment is a very important part of putting an end to it. Can the minister please speak to what this government and our policing partners are doing to ensure that police have all of the tools that they need and the training to be part of stopping sexual violence and harassment? Thank you, minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I want to say thank you to the member of Kingston and the island for her advocacy on these women's issues. Mr. Speaker, as a woman and a mother of a daughter, I want to once again thank police services that have reexamined their handling of sexual assault cases. My ministry recently invested $1.8 million to support 15 pilot projects to help ensure a survivor-centric and effective investigative approach for sexual assault cases. This initiative is part of its never okay, our government groundbreaking action plan to end sexual violence and harassment. Mr. Speaker, the basic Constable Training Program at the Ontario Police College now includes survivor focus and sensitivity component in the curriculum. We know we will see even greater results if our police recruits have more comprehensive training. Ensuring a compassion police response is one of the many measures our government and our police service taking to help survivors. Thank you. New question to the member from Dufford County. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment. This summer, we've experienced historic rainfalls across Ontario. Many communities have experienced flooding and our municipal sewer systems were often overwhelmed. As you know, when these heavy rains occur, municipalities are often forced to initiate a bypass at their sewage treatment plants, releasing partially treated sewage into our local waterways. In 2016, municipalities were forced to bypass more than 6.5 billion leaders of partially treated sewage. Will the minister release how many sewage bypasses have occurred in 2017? Thank you. Mostly the environment and climate change. Well, thank you. And thank you to the speaker for that question because water quality is a very important aspect of what we do with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. And I know we have worked extensively with municipalities across Ontario Speaker to address bypass concerns. And, you know, Speaker, we're committed to helping municipalities upgrade their infrastructure to separate storm and waste sewage to minimize these sewage discharges. So to be clear, though, Speaker, wastewater treatment plants are owned and operated by municipalities, not by the province. So, but that said, that said, Speaker, the ministry does monitor bypass incidents to confirm that these municipalities have contingency plans to address any discharges at their facilities. So, Speaker, we're going to continue to work with these municipalities to make sure that they minimize the number of discharges. Thank you. Time for question period is over. Therefore, there are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.