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

June 3, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Jun-03 (PDF)

L092 - Wed 3 Jun 2015 / Mer 3 jun 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 June 2015 Mercredi 3 juin 2015

Orders of the Day

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Introduction of Visitors

Residential schools

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Justice of the peace

Ontario Energy Board

Pipeline

Assistive Devices Program

Class size

Child poverty

Long-term care

Forestry industry

Visitors

Deferred Votes

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Académie catholique Ange-Gabriel

Mary Ann Mulhern

Ontario Flag Day / Jour du drapeau de l’Ontario

Agri-food industry

Fort Erie Race Track

Anniversary of Barrie tornado

Lake Nipissing walleye fishery

Girls Government

Great Blue Heron Charity Casino

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Motions

Consideration of Bill 13

Ontario Bike Month Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Mois de la bicyclette en Ontario

Consideration of Bill 61

Terry Fox Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour de Terry Fox

Consideration of Bill 101

Ontario Flag Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour du drapeau de l’Ontario

Ontario Flag Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour du drapeau de l’Ontario

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Curriculum

Accident benefits

Unlicensed taxis

Electronic cigarettes

Environmental protection

Lake Nipissing walleye fishery

Missing persons

Lung health

Energy policies

Highway improvement

French-language education

Hospital funding

Privatisation des biens publics

Wind turbines

Orders of the Day

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 2, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant la protection et le rétablissement du bassin des Grands Lacs et du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I’m glad to come back and finish the debate I started last night. I only have a few minutes left, and I hope to just review what I spoke about for the last 15 minutes in the House. That’s basically discussing that this legislation, unless fully utilized and brought out to the people of Ontario, might only amount to photo op legislation, where the government can pass this bill, have the Great Lakes Protection Act, get a good photo with it and make the headlines. As we’ve seen with other bills this government has brought forward, there’s usually no action after instituting them.

I’m hoping that we can look back at this bill three years down the road and see some tangible results, instead of it just being passed at one part of this year.

As my constituent Mark Wales has said, we need qualitative and quantitative end points so that we can look back and see how we’ve achieved this. I’ve outlined the fact about the funding model that isn’t present to ensure that some of these initiatives go forward. I refer back to the Invasive Species Act where, in speaking with many conservation authorities throughout the province in my critic portfolio, they’re concerned that no money is going to follow the Invasive Species Act.

While the powers might be there to deal with invasive species, there’s no funding to actually carry through and deal with much of the invasive species that the conservation authorities are looking to deal with, especially in my area near Long Point, where phragmites has basically taken over the entire area that was once a beautiful place to go duck hunting. They had a great habitat for ducks to come, but unfortunately the phragmites is slowly just diminishing the habitat.

There was a bit of talk on the other side of the House about nutrient runoff, mainly blaming the farmers of this province, that I’d also like to quickly talk about. That’s kind of concerning, considering these guardians’ councils are supposed to be composed and decide what’s going to go on around the Great Lakes. We need to ensure that farmers are adequately represented on these councils, because you can’t just blame the farmers for nutrient runoff. They’re trying to do their part with improving their farming practices to minimize nutrient runoff.

In particular, they usually have moved away from tilling the property, which greatly enhances the maintenance of nutrients in the soil. However, with the neonic ban coming forward from this government, you might see that practice diminish and therefore increase the nutrient runoff.

However, we’ve got to look at other sources of nutrient runoff in this province. As I mentioned before, when developers come in and build a new subdivision, the first thing they do is take away all the good soil on top of the land, build their subdivision and then only replace a small amount, which prevents proper runoff of rainwater, in washing their lawns, because the ground underneath is usually clay, and it doesn’t soak in quite well. So you’ll see a lot of the nutrients that they do put on with fertilizers and such run right off into the catch basins, into our water systems and out into the lakes.

We also have to look at municipalities and ensure that their sewage treatment facilities are on par and working well. Too often you might see a bad rainfall, or flooding in some instances, that overruns sewage maintenance plants and unfortunately ends up in our lakes and streams, causing quite a bit of the increased nutrients in our Great Lakes.

Of course, we’ve got the Americans on the other side of the border, who have their own farming practices that aren’t as superb as the ones in Ontario.

In culmination of all the various items I have mentioned, you can’t just blame the Ontario farmer. I would hope that the government moves away from focusing on the Ontario farmer. They are the economic engine of this province; the only industry that seems to be able to make a go of it at this point in time. Particularly in my riding, they are definitely keeping our area employed, per se, as they are the ones who are able to buy new trucks and equipment and spend money in the cities, because this government hasn’t found a way to destroy their industry yet, although I’m sure they’re looking to do so.

As I said earlier, just to recap: the funding model is not there; there’s no local autonomy being returned to the municipalities—we’d like to see them stop putting up industrial wind turbines without the permission of local municipalities; there’s no respect for landowners—being able to go on anybody’s property without a warrant is a slippery slope to head down; again, I mentioned the guardians’ council—the Ministry of Natural Resources can’t even form a fishing management zone council over the last seven years. Zone 16 is still unformed, per se. It’s a smaller council than the Great Lakes council.

I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to respond to the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London. I was in the House last night, and I heard him do the first 15 minutes. He was quite articulate and touched on a lot of issues that I think we share, in terms of our concerns about this bill.

The member and I also share close geographic locations. He’s in Elgin–Middlesex–London; I’m in Essex—a lot of rural agricultural land. We are adjacent to Lake Erie, and so we understand the complexities of living near a lake and also living in a very high density of farmland. We have to understand and know the impacts this bill potentially could have on our agriculture community.

That’s why, as New Democrats, we’ve called for this bill to not only have broad consultation, given that it is broad in its scope and far-reaching, but also to travel this bill to all quadrants of the province so that we have good information from those who will be impacted by the bill and we can collect the right amount of data.

Last night, I heard the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change talk about the fact that this will be a mechanism to collect further data and to address some of the issues related to climate change and to new processes coming about, whether they be industrial or agricultural, and to ensure that we can mitigate against those processes and ensure the protection of the Great Lakes. Now, that’s all well and good; however, if we don’t have the resources tied to this bill—meaning money, frankly—then our fear is that it won’t have the desired effect and certainly won’t carry the protection that the title of the bill states.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I enjoyed the remarks of the member because he wove into his speech the fact that it has implications for his particular riding. I think, ultimately, all of us look to our own ridings, first of all, when legislation is passed and ask, “What kind of effect would this have?” I would recommend that he consult with Yvonne Harris, who is a well-known spokesperson in his riding on matters related to the Legislative Assembly. She will see her name now in Hansard and be pleased with that.

We have to look at all of the sources. I think the member is correct in saying, “Don’t concentrate on just one source or another.” There are significant sources everywhere. But governments, and particularly environment departments, wherever the jurisdiction happens to be, must be prepared to take significant action, because those who do reside on Lake Erie, for instance, in the case the member mentioned—when you have Lake Erie nearby, you know the problem that the algae is having along there. It’s not just the odour and the look of it, which is very unattractive, but it’s the fact that it can become quite toxic as well.

So looking for all ways to be able to deal with this is important. The Great Lakes, as we know, are a real gem that we share with the United States. They’re exceedingly important. We’ve made some progress over the years in terms of the cleanup, but population increases new substances that are introduced to it. When this bill was introduced a few years ago now, it seems to me, when I happened to be Minister of the Environment, we were looking at all of those opportunities to deal with this.

I think the comments of all members of the House have been valuable in dealing with this particular piece of legislation, and I thank the member for his contribution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always great to hear my colleague get up and talk about some of the real issues. It’s funny; I’ve been here going on four years. We see legislation go through. I think that summing it up as just another opportunity for a photo op is kind of interesting, but that seems to be what it is. They have something that they talk about as being so important, but there’s no funding in it, so what are the real plans?

My riding runs along the St. Lawrence. We have five or six water treatment plants that draw their water from the St. Lawrence River in our area, so water is very important.

But it is also a collaborative affair. We’re one of many jurisdictions on the water, on the Great Lakes, that have an input, but certainly, the neighbours to the south—we have committees where they’re already involved, and I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to work more with that instead of just forming another committee to look after the Great Lakes. How many applications and how many expert panels do you have?

I was somewhat surprised when my colleague talked about the possibility of not having an agricultural rep on it, but I guess when you look at the track record of this government, there’s good reason why the agricultural community is somewhat concerned that they won’t have a rep on it. They get mentioned many times as being one of the causes, although when you drive along the Great Lakes, you see many good farms being bulldozed and houses being put up, so I don’t know if you look at the total picture. Really, the impact of agriculture—agriculture is a green industry, and it’s probably our number one industry.

I think that if you are going to go with a guardians’ council, they should be a very big part of it, in a percentage that’s reflective of the industry and the impact they have on it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to stand in this House, and to follow today the comments by the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London and his take on Bill 66. I had the opportunity to listen, both this morning and to the first part. He brought up a lot of concerns about agriculture, and they were valid concerns.

We’re in favour of this bill, but this bill has the potential, depending on how it’s handled, of being a photo op and window dressing, or being a good bill, or being a devastating bill for agriculture, depending on how it’s interpreted and on how the government actually uses it.

I’ve heard a lot of other members speak about how their ridings are close to the Great Lakes, but this bill covers the Great Lakes basin. That’s 95% of the agricultural land in Ontario. This bill covers the majority of my riding, and I’m six hours straight north. Eight hours straight north of here: This bill covers it. So it’s a very important bill for agriculture, depending on how it’s implemented.

I’ve seen some of the press releases, and reading the bill—sometimes they’re acting like this is the first step to protect the Great Lakes, and that’s patently untrue. Specifically, the agriculture sector has been working for years with the government—with various governments—to do their part to protect the environment, and specifically the Great Lakes, with nutrient management plans. Most farmers have environmental farm plans.

We have to be crystal clear that those are taken into account, and that they’re not simply superseded when someone comes up with a bright new idea out of nowhere, and thinks they’re going to solve all the problems. That’s where this bill is dangerous. We have to make sure that the regulations under this bill actually make sense for the industry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London has two minutes.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to thank everyone who commented on my remarks.

The member from Essex—I had a tour of Pelee Island, down in his area, just a few months ago. It’s a great place to visit. The fishing industry in that area is quite concerned about the health of the Great Lakes; it does affect them. I know that you’ve talked about your pickerel and walleye up north, but I do want to mention that the perch out of Lake Erie is probably some of the best fish I’ve ever had. We have a great time in our riding, enjoying our perch fish fries.

Thanks to the deputy House leader for his remarks.

Members from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and Timiskaming–Cochrane, thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.

The Great Lakes Protection Act is a great title for this bill. However, we’ve got to ensure that it’s definitely a bill that’s actually going to do something other than create a photo op for this government. We do have to remember, when they create these local councils to oversee areas—these guardians’ councils—the fact that this bill is giving them the power to supersede so many other laws in our area, including planning bylaws. This could actually affect the development of certain cities and areas, which we do have to be concerned about.

Hopefully, these guardians’ councils do not become like the LHINs have become in our health care system, where they’re these far-off groups of people who are making decisions about health care.

On our local LHIN, one person out of all of Elgin county is the voice for the people of our area with local health care concerns. They’re not in touch with the people of this riding; they don’t have their finger on the pulse. They’re basically just doing what the government’s bidding is. Hopefully, the guardians’ councils that this government is going to create, which are going to supersede so many bills and regulations and laws, don’t become that model.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning to all my colleagues. I’m really happy to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I obviously represent the riding of Essex, which borders Lake Erie, one of our Great Lakes. Also, in the north end of the riding, we have Lake St. Clair, a wonderful, beautiful lake that is fed through the St. Clair River into the Detroit River. It contains some of the most beautiful scenery, exciting fishing opportunities and water sports opportunities.

I grew up in Belle River and I was always drawn to the water. Even though we didn’t live on the water, I was drawn there. As a kid it was where I sought—not refuge, but my entertainment. Many of my friends, we would go fishing and swimming and skiing and do all the other great things that living around a lake affords. It’s something that you develop a deep understanding about in terms of how important it is to protect that natural resource.

We knew that we gained our drinking water from the lake. We had economic opportunities—seeing the freighters roll through the Detroit River coming and parking in front of the Windsor Salt mine to send salt around the world.

So, Speaker, we understand and are connected, certainly, with our Great Lakes system—all the more reason to ensure that we, as legislators, do everything that we can do to protect its health and its use and maintain a healthy environment for those who use the Great Lakes and live around the Great Lakes.

It’s been said in this House that, of the 107 ridings that we have represented in the Legislature here, there will be four that aren’t directly affected by this bill, meaning, I would imagine, that they aren’t a part of a watershed system. It’s interesting—

Mr. John Vanthof: I wonder which four.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I wonder which four.

It just goes to show you, Speaker, that this is far-reaching in its implementation.

Here are some stats on the Great Lakes for members’ information.

The Great Lakes contain nearly 20% of the Earth’s surface fresh water.

There are over 4,000 species of plants, fish and wildlife in the Great Lakes basin.

The Great Lakes replenish slowly, at a rate of less than 1% each year, and it takes 300 years for a drop of water to travel from Lake Superior through Lakes Huron, Erie, Ontario and the St. Lawrence and into the ocean.

The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River shoreline is the largest freshwater shoreline in the world, and Ontario has over 10,000 kilometres of this—more than all eight of the Great Lakes states combined.

Ontario’s population is growing at a rate of 6% per year, mostly concentrated around the Great Lakes. It’s the fastest-growing Great Lakes jurisdiction.

If the Great Lakes regions, including Ontario, Quebec and the eight Great Lakes states, were treated as a single economy, it would be the fourth-largest in the world, with a GDP of $5.1 trillion and 56 million jobs.

The Great Lakes waters help generate 80% of Ontario’s electricity, including hydroelectricity and cooling for power plants.

Ontario’s commercial Great Lakes fisheries contributed about $234 million to Ontario’s economy in 2011, and Great Lakes regional anglers—of which I’m proudly one, Speaker—contribute more than $600 million annually to Ontario’s economy. I can attest to that on how many lures I lose.

In 2010, Ontario’s Great Lakes region attracted over 73 million tourists. These tourists spent approximately $12.3 billion.

Great Lakes shipping routes stimulate nearly $16 billion in annual economic activity in Ontario and Quebec.

The watersheds of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin include all of southern Ontario and a large

section of northern Ontario, as well as large sections of the United States, including eight Great Lakes states, and Quebec. These watersheds are home to 40% of Canadians, 75% of Canadian manufacturing, and one third of Canada’s agriculture and processing jobs.

Over the last 400 years there have been accelerated stresses on our Great Lakes ecosystem. These main stresses include overfishing; nutrient loading; excess phosphorus and nitrogen due to human waste and urban and agricultural runoff; toxic chemicals; land use practices—for example, filling in wetlands and modification of shorelines; invasive species and animal species—the sea lamprey, Asian carp, zebra mussel; hydrologic alterations—diverting water flows with dams and channels; and climate change, of course, where we see higher volumes of climate-related weather patterns.

Those stats should show us quite clearly that our Great Lakes are literally our lifeblood not only to our own personal and communal health but to our economic health as well. We rely on them maybe more than we even know. All the more reason for us to do everything that we can.

As I stated in my previous hit, this bill is far-reaching. As my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane stated, it has the potential to be either a really, really good bill, and something that can be incredibly functional, or it could be a waste of time, and potentially disastrous if it isn’t done in the right way with the right consultation and the right emphasis.

We, certainly, as New Democrats support this bill and we support the Great Lakes. We believe that access to water is a basic human right, and the Great Lakes are a shared public good. I don’t think anyone in this House would disagree with that. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin is obviously hugely important to our ecology, tourism and economy, and we need lakes and rivers that are drinkable, swimmable and fishable.

In terms of being potentially comprehensive legislation, we would say that this bill is long overdue. However, if you look at what exists in Great Lakes legislation and protection, we have several mechanisms that prescribe different controls and acts of law to protect the Great Lakes. We have the Ontario Water Resources Act that dates back to the 1950s, we have the Environmental Protection Act which is Ontario’s main pollution control legislation, we have the Environmental Assessment Act which is Ontario’s main environmental planning legislation and we have the Conservation Authorities Act that was enacted in 1946.

My colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh, who spent many years previously on Windsor city council—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Your speaker is right behind you and you guys are having a loud conversation in front of your own guy who’s speaking.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was House stuff.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): If you’ve got House business, feel free to go outside and talk about it, not in front of the guy who’s speaking right in front of you.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I truly appreciate your intervention; thank you. Sometimes I want to say the same thing. It’s tough to carry on two conversations at once so I certainly appreciate the role you do.

I was going through some of the various acts that we currently have on the books that deal with environmental protection and Great Lakes protection. The Conservation Authorities Act—I was talking about my colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh who spent many years on town council and also sat on the Essex Region Conservation Authority board and dealt with some of those issues in our region. He mentioned some of the great work that ERCA has done over the years to enhance our Great Lakes area and the surrounding areas of Windsor and Essex counties.

I just want to give a shout-out to those who work at ERCA and who continue to endeavour to protect our Great Lakes and our watersheds, specifically Tim Byrne who is a long-standing member and conservation officer with ERCA; he does a great job. He’s a wonderful spokesperson for our region and is very knowledgeable and has a lot of experience in rural affairs as they pertain to the health of our Great Lakes. He’s someone who has put a lot of thought into the effects of human activities and what they do to our Great Lakes and our water systems.

He comes from a farming family—the Byrnes are well-known, long-time farmers in Essex county—so he gets that juxtaposition of the protection of water as well as ensuring that we have economic development in our agriculture development. He certainly would take that balanced approach.

What we’re asking and calling for the government to do, certainly within the context of this bill, is to find that balance. We would propose that the balance could be found through broad consultations. Travel this bill; get it out there. It’s too far-reaching to just contain it in this House with the knowledge that we have and that our researchers can dig up for us. We have to talk to people like Tim Byrne.

We have to talk to farmers out there who have been ensuring best practices—not only ensuring them but actually were the innovators of them: no-till practices that contained nutrients and ensured that we were able to avoid runoff into our watersheds. There are a lot of lessons to be learned out there that we can take from those on the ground. I hope that the government is confident enough in this bill and the prescriptions of this bill that they can go out and talk to people. We certainly would appreciate that and would support that in all measures.

One of the things that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change spoke about yesterday—he hit on a lot of issues. He came in for a two-minute hit and he kind of elaborated on why we need this bill. I appreciated the information that he delivered to us. He talked about nutrient runoff. He talked about some of the invasive species that are micro-organisms that we don’t even know about. We talk about the zebra mussel, the round goby and the Asian carp as being invasive species, maybe because we can see them, but there are potentially other micro-organisms that we don’t even know exist that have a detrimental effect on our water system.

He hit on one that I don’t think we have paid enough attention to: the increased use and volume of pharmaceuticals that are found in our water treatment centres or facilities, municipal water treatment facilities. Our water treatment facilities are quite high-tech; they can do a lot of things. They use ozone. They use chemicals. They treat our water. By and large, you have seen that the drinking water quality in Ontario is among the very best in the world. However, when it comes to pharmaceuticals in our water system—when you go to your doctor, your doctor may prescribe you a certain medicine.

They’ll give you the prescription, and maybe you might even get another prescription for another ailment. But what they’ll say, what they’ll clearly tell you, is, “You can take this pill, you can take this pill, but make sure you don’t mix it with this third pill, because that can have some detrimental and contraindication effects within the pharmaceuticals.”

What we’re doing is, we are all pouring our own various pharmaceuticals into our water system, and it is having some very serious effects on the various ecosystems within the Great Lakes. We’re seeing reptiles in certain areas feeling the effects and having various potential mutations because we’re not able to treat pharmaceuticals. We just don’t know how to do that; the science isn’t there within our water treatment system.

It’s something that I would love to see this government take a clear focus on and be the leader in Canada and around the world in terms of how we deal with this huge problem, the increased use of pharmaceuticals through human activity—how we’re going to deal with that, going into the future.

The bill prescribes a lot of regulation through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so we need to ensure that those are given due consideration. It’s always tough when we see a bill come through that prescribes so much to regulation, because there’s so much that is unknown. I think you heard it here today during the debate: We don’t know how much potential downloading of responsibility onto municipalities this bill will prescribe.

There’s some concern out there within the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that this will, again, be another job that they will have to take on and find the resources to be able to do that. That’s certainly not a partnership that our communities in and around our Great Lakes are looking for. They’re looking for some leadership, through the provincial government, to actually tackle some of the issues that we see.

Many have talked about nutrient runoff and its effects. We know that in other jurisdictions, mainly in the United States, they’re just starting to tackle this problem. We’ve had the Nutrient Management Act since 2002. It’s a statute that was enacted following the Walkerton inquiry. It requires farmers and those operators to develop nutrient management strategies as part of source water protection, and large livestock operators in Ontario have had to be in compliance with the act since 2005.

We’ve been ahead of the curve on this, and our agricultural community has done a lot of work in ensuring that they maintain the nutrients that are on their fields. We’ve heard why. Certainly, as stewards of the environment and of the land, they understand that they have a vested interest in maintaining not only the health of their plots of land but the health of their communities so that we can all enjoy, ultimately, the fruits of their labour. They get that circle of life, or that economic circle.

What they also do not want to do is waste any money. They would literally, if they didn’t embark on those best practices, be flushing it down the drain. We understand that in the New Democratic Party, and we certainly want to support those farmers and recognize them when they are utilizing those best practices. That’s something we don’t do.

Of course, we understand what happened in Toledo, Ohio—I believe it was close to two years ago—where they had such massive agricultural runoff that it actually shut down their water treatment system and they had to have bottled water for a number of days, potentially weeks. It gave them cause to enact legislation to ensure that farmers were not spraying nutrients onto their fields when there was a high level of saturation or when there was an anticipated level of saturation due to the forecast.

Speaker, we’ve been doing that in Ontario for years now. We understand that, and it’s certainly something that we see our farmers in Essex county utilizing, that type of nutrient management system.

There are some things that the bill talks about that are new and potentially innovative, and one is geographically focused initiatives. We’re not quite sure what that specifically means. I guess it gives the minister the ability to identify specific projects in areas that they want to tackle. So whether they be acute issues in some areas—I don’t know how they plan on funding that or supporting that, through which mechanism, through the Ministry of the Environment, whether they’ll have sort of a SWAT team to go out and actually address these specific, geographically focused initiatives, because there is currently no type of body that does that.

The other aspect that I guess is novel in this bill is the implementation and establishment of the Great Lakes Guardians’ Council, which will be made up of the Minister of the Environment as well as other stakeholders with connections to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The council will meet at least once a year to discuss priorities for action, funding measures, targets and initiatives. This is a great idea. We should all get together and talk about the health of the Great Lakes. But what teeth will it have?

We know the IJC, the International Joint Commission, is solely focused on the health and maintenance of the Great Lakes in an international context. They’ve done a lot of great work. There is a ton of research that comes out of the IJC. Will this council have the ability to embark on research projects? Will they have, again, legislative teeth to uphold some of the laws that are currently on the books? We’re not quite sure.

What we do know is that the stakeholders who make up the Great Lakes Guardians’ Council should be very broad. We should see a broad segment of those who are in the agriculture industry, municipal leadership, and some laypeople too. Let’s just hear from normal people about what their effects are. Let’s bring in our community members who can spread that message about the fact that we may actually be doing something tangible to support the health of our Great Lakes.

Speaker, I think I’m nearing the end of my time here. I want to thank the members for listening intently, specifically my colleagues here, who have been good and quiet for the remainder of the time since your intervention. I want to thank all the members for their attention here this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to thank the member for Essex for his comments on this bill.

I couldn’t agree more with everyone who has spoken to this bill about the importance of clean water. It goes without saying. Growing up in the township of King, where I did, I witnessed first-hand a degradation of the water, primarily the East Humber River that flows through King township and eventually makes its way to Lake Ontario. When my father was a young boy, he’d fish for speckled trout in that lake. As a young boy, I was able to fish for bass in that river system.

I would challenge people in today’s world to even find where that creek is, because it has dried up, the fish are gone and it’s nothing more than an algae-filled series of little ponds. So we see first-hand what happens when we don’t take care of our water systems.

I’m hoping—and I believe—that this proposed legislation will go a long way to making sure that the water within the Great Lakes is protected and that future generations don’t see the degradation of water systems that I witnessed and my father witnessed over, really, a fairly short time of probably only 80 years or so.

I know that in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, even though we sit on the Oak Ridges moraine—known as the rain barrel—about 75% of our water in our riding is pumped from Lake Ontario and makes its way up to our distribution system. So even though we’re a number of miles away from Lake Ontario, it’s very important we make sure that that water quality is maintained.

It is good to see that we’re going to have the support of all three parties as we move this bill ahead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to make a few comments on the member from Essex’s comments.

I agree with everything people are saying here today as far as water being probably the most important resource that we have. However, this Great Lakes Protection Act—I have some real problems with how this will actually be implemented.

When you look at

an act like the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, we’re talking about a watershed, and we actually worked with the municipalities and the federal government around the watershed. That’s how we protect Lake Simcoe. Of course, it works, and it slowly is improving. However, when you look at the multiple jurisdictions that are on both sides of the border on the Great Lakes, I think it’s almost an impossibility to ever properly implement this bill.

Someone said it sounds like a great photo op, when you cut the ribbon to say the bill was introduced or you have a fancy evening at some fancy suite somewhere and everybody brags about how wonderful things are, but the reality is the whole implementation process, I think, is going to be a real problem.

The International Joint Commission, in my opinion, is the group that should be leading the actual charge on this Great Lakes Protection Act. That’s who is responsible. That takes in people from all across North America. As well, we have the Great Lakes mayors, who are also a group that’s trying to protect the Great Lakes. However, one province creating legislation when there are probably 75 other jurisdictions that are impacting this I think is a cause for concern. How will this actually be implemented over a long period of time?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m always pleased and honoured and privileged to rise on behalf of the voices in Algoma–Manitoulin and speak to this bill this morning.

The introduction of the Great Lakes act is something that I want to see and that people across the riding want to see as well. But the concern that was raised by my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane earlier was that if there’s no follow-through on this, once again—and this is a theme that I’ve used over the years that I’ve been here—it’s a plan to implement a plan to make a plan. And that plan might go in two different ways: It might be a positive one or it might be a negative one.

What the member from Essex so eloquently brought up in his remarks is the importance of reaching out: the importance of reaching out to all stakeholders, gathering the information, travelling the bill to various communities and listening to the agricultural sector, the tourism sector, the marinas—everyone. Everyone needs to have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to tell you that just a couple of years ago, we had to fight in order to get the IJC committee meetings to be heard on Manitoulin Island. It was great that we finally got it rescheduled, but why wouldn’t we have meetings on the largest freshwater island in the world? That’s Manitoulin Island. It’s right in the basket. So getting that meeting was absolutely imperative.

My colleague so eloquently talked about flushing pharmaceutical products down into our waterways. You know what? You flush it; you forget about it.

But there is another big problem that we’re hiding, that we’re not speaking enough about: the hiding of nuclear waste in Kincardine, putting it a mile away from our biggest freshwater body of water that we have across this country—and we’re doing it. We need to question ourselves and challenge ourselves—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Questions and comments?

Ms. Soo Wong: Good morning. I’m very pleased to stand this morning to speak in support of Bill 66. We are very fortunate here in Ontario to have one of the best great lakes systems in the country but also in the world.

As a former nurse, I was visiting Kenya back around 2008. The last day I was leaving Kenya, six little persons died from drinking dirty water. We know water can kill. It is our collective responsibility in this chamber to protect the clean water that we have for the next generation.

We also know that the strengthening of this act provides provisions on the earlier versions to help Ontario to continue to build the partnership that we have with the First Nations and Métis communities. This includes the First Nations’ and Métis’ participation in the guardians’ council and early involvement in the development of geographically focused initiatives involving the revision of Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy. More importantly, we need to make sure that the traditional ecological knowledge, as well as their consideration, is being considered in this particular bill.

I’m very pleased this morning to hear from the third party, the member from Essex and his eloquent remarks, at the beginning of this portion of the debate, of his support, but also the member from the official opposition party. At the end of the day, it’s our collective responsibility to protect the Great Lakes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Essex has two minutes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank the members from Newmarket–Aurora, Simcoe North, Algoma–Manitoulin, and Scarborough–Agincourt for their comments.

My colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin raised a point that I wanted to touch on but I didn’t get a chance to. The proposal by the federal government to create a nuclear waste depository along the basin of Lake Huron, miles under the ground, is frightening. That’s a nightmare waiting to happen, literally. Those who are opponents of this have been quite vocal. There are a lot of folks in the bordering United States who are making a lot of hay of this issue. We have yet to hear anything tangible from our environment minister, specifically, about the role that Ontario can play. That’s discouraging.

I would like to see a clear plan on this issue, specifically. We cannot afford to have our entire Great Lakes system contaminated by nuclear waste because we figure we can just bury it. We have to come up with something more complex and something more functional than just burying our problems. I don’t know whether that specific issue can be dealt with or will be dealt with within the context of this new Great Lakes Protection Act. I hope it is.

I hope it can be, but given the standoffish nature of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change at this point in handing that responsibility solely off to the federal government—we know they’re not going to take it seriously. They’re the ones who are proposing that we deal with this in that way. Let’s take some leadership on that file.

I certainly appreciate the comments from all of my colleagues, and I welcome further debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I will speak to Bill 66, the Great Lakes Protection Act, which I strongly oppose as a very wrongful piece of legislation that will hurt Ontarians.

There are a number of points that I would like to make, and I will begin with speaking to the loss of local autonomy. The implementation of this bill will result in the further erosion of local autonomy for communities across Ontario. The continual destruction of local autonomy by the provincial government is based on the demonstrably false premise that the environment continues to degrade, that local municipalities and private landowners are the cause of that degradation, that municipalities are either incapable or unwilling to successfully address environmental issues, and that a minister in Toronto and his hand-picked people know what is best for them and needs to set them straight.

Many, many rural and northern Ontario residents and municipalities disagree with that flawed and, quite frankly, insulting assumption. To that end, in an effort to inform policy-makers of the needs of rural and northern Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association developed the Rural and Northern Lens to assist policy-makers to evaluate proposed policies. I want to focus on three specific questions included in the Rural and Northern Lens to illustrate a number of my misgivings with this bill:

(1) Does the proposed initiative benefit or hinder the fiscal realities of rural and northern Ontario?

(2) Does the proposed initiative have a business case that accounts for low and sparse populations?

(3) Does the proposed initiative have adequate human and financial resources to be effective?

The truth is, we don’t know the answers to any of those questions. Funds have not been allocated to Bill 66. In fact, the bill instructs the guardians’ council to recommend potential funding mechanisms—that would be the taxpayer, because we know one way or the other that is the one who will pay, whether through higher taxes or through higher product prices.

In addition, there are no assurances that rural and northern municipally elected representatives or residents will be invited to participate, and even if they are invited to participate, that they will be listened to.

Lastly, designated policies and regulations included within geographically focused initiatives will override the decisions of local elected officials, including local official plans and zoning bylaws.

The structure of this bill is eerily similar to another provincial government boondoggle called the Green Energy Act. If the industrial wind turbines are so wonderful, why did the provincial government remove municipal decision-making authority with respect to wind turbines? Even after promising to stop imposing industrial wind turbines on unwilling hosts, the provincial government continues to do so, deaf to scientists, deaf to residents, deaf to taxpayers and deaf to municipalities.

Given the open-ended nature of this bill, the question must be asked: What surprises does the provincial government have in store for residents that they feel it necessary to remove local decision-making authority? Time will tell, I’m afraid.

Existing legislation: The provincial government claims that they need new legal tools to deal with emerging priorities. Yet when asked what those priorities are, the government states that the guardians’ council will identify priorities sometime in the future. So the provincial government needs legislation to address priorities that they cannot currently identify. That sounds very suspicious.

The provincial government is in the habit, when introducing legislation, of insinuating that a hole exists with respect to environmental protection. This claim could not be further from the truth.

Legislation, policies, regulations, agreements and organizations protecting the environment, and the Great Lakes specifically, have been in place for decades, including the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Nutrient Management Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Water Opportunities Act, the Water Resources Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Planning Act, the provincial policy statement, the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes committee of the Canada-Ontario Agreement and the US-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, to name just a few.

To say that this bill will create overlap, duplication and conflict is an understatement, and all without the oversight of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is a very concerning trend: open-ended, vague, arbitrary legislation that allows the minister to consolidate power and essentially legislate on his own with little, if any, oversight.

Accountability brings me to another concerning trend: the increased creation and/or use of outside groups. Groups that are unelected and unaccountable to the electorate for regulatory functions is not an innovative governance tool. It is nothing short of the creation of a shadow corporatist governance structure, the function of which is to bypass the legitimate legislative process.

We have very telling examples of what happens when outside groups are given power and authority with too little or no oversight. For example, the lack of oversight and accountability of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that resulted in an organization run amok, an organization that destroys people’s lives because they can, because they do not face the consequences for bad behaviour.

The inherent conflict of interest created by delegating police powers to an organization that relies on fundraising, while addressed by the courts, still has not been addressed by the provincial government. In fact, despite their blatant abuse of power, the provincial government has recently decided to give the OSPCA more power—this heavy-handed, biased, unaccountable government.

What conflicts of interest will be created by Bill 66? We don’t know yet, but we do know that NGOs are not above using their lobbying power and appointments to target political enemies, including local businesses. An appointment to the guardians’ council could potentially be used to encourage and legitimatize politically motivated attacks.

Centralization and private property rights: Private property rights are the foundation of western civilization and democracy. Private property rights are the underpinning of our prosperity. Private property rights and the resulting prosperity are the reason our environment has improved and continues to improve. Centralized collective control of land inevitably leads to a worse environment. This is demonstrable. Unfortunately, in Ontario we have seen the incremental destruction of private property rights by all levels of governments over the last several decades.

I fear that this bill, with its ill-defined and arbitrary authority, is the final nail in the coffin of private property rights in Ontario and, therefore, our prosperity and our environment, because without the wealth to fund investments into the environment, they won’t happen.

A self-evident truth is that private property owners are the best decision-makers with respect to their property as they have a vested interest in investing in and improving their property compared to remote, centralized decision-makers who are unaccountable for the outcomes of their decisions. The best decisions for communities and the environment are made at the local level, whether by a local municipality or a private landowner.

We know that increased centralization of decision-making and collective control of property results in decreasing prosperity and a degraded environment.

One of the best, most visible examples of this phenomenon is just a couple of kilometres east of Queen’s Park, in Cabbagetown. In the 1940s a large swath of Cabbagetown was torn down to build Regent Park, a collectively owned and centrally controlled public housing project. It is true that Cabbagetown was a slum at the time, but it wasn’t because the residents were lazy or didn’t want a better environment but because they lacked resources.

Over time, as the residents of Cabbagetown accumulated wealth, they invested their individually accumulated resources in their individual properties, and today Cabbagetown is a beautiful, green neighbourhood. Currently, homes in Cabbagetown routinely sell for well over $1 million. Also currently, Regent Park, collectively owned and centrally controlled, is being torn down. Regent Park degraded over time because its residents did not own the land and so did not have an incentive to invest in and improve their environment.

Centralized decision-making authority and collective control of private land will remove the inherent incentive of private property owners to invest in their land and will inevitably result in a degraded environment.

Censorship: What is rarely talked about in this House but what concerns me is censorship. This bill not only removes the decision-making authority of local authorities, including municipalities, it requires public bodies to support the decisions of the minister. In other words, elected officials, land use planners and other professionals working for a planning authority or local municipality cannot submit a dissenting view, even if the public is in disagreement, even if in their professional opinion, a designated policy is unwarranted and will result in bad outcomes.

The question needs to be asked: What ugly surprises does the provincial government have in store for residents and municipalities that they felt it necessary to remove the ability of local decision-making authorities to dissent?

Public consultations: Notice for the public hearing for Bill 6, the predecessor to Bill 66, was given approximately 36 hours prior to the hearing taking place. The hearing was held for one day, in a committee room at Queen’s Park. The short notice period limited hearing time, and the location of the hearing disenfranchised many resource user groups, landowners, municipalities, residents and other interested stakeholders who were unable to attend due to time and travel constraints.

Given that the scope of this bill spans 105 of the 107 ridings in the province and so could potentially adversely impact the well-being of the vast majority of residents, municipalities, people and businesses in Ontario, I strongly recommend that the hearings be held in a variety of locations across the province and that ample notice be provided to the public prior to public hearings being held. People have a right to be heard, not simply to send in a submission which can be safely ignored, but to be heard by MPPs and other citizens alike, particularly rural and northern residents, who routinely feel ignored by this government.

Again, I will refer to ROMA’s Rural and Northern Lens. There are just three questions that need to be answered prior to this bill being passed:

Does the proposed initiative ensure that rural and northern communities are receiving equitable treatment or services relative to other parts of the province?

Does the proposed initiative accommodate the aspirations of residents from rural communities and the north?

Does the proposed initiative build upon the input and advice of rural residents, communities and municipalities?

The provincial government needs to hear from a whole lot of people prior to passing and implementing this bill, so that Ontarians may ask questions and hold the government to account.

In conclusion, a constituent sent me a very powerful quote the other day that sums this bill up quite nicely: “If you can’t trust people with freedom, how can you trust people with power?” The centralization of power in this bill, similar to the Green Energy Act, will not just disenfranchise private landowners, but also local communities. Rural Ontario doesn’t trust this government, and for good reason: Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. We have witnessed communities devastated by the imposition of industrial wind turbines, which chop up birds, devalue property and make people sick.

The arbitrary nature of this bill begs the question, what further environmentally destructive policies is the provincial government planning to impose on rural Ontario through this bill? Rural people are tired of being bullied by this government, whether it’s the utter mismanagement of Hydro One, the Green Energy Act, the imposition of industrial wind turbines on unwilling hosts, high and rising energy prices, the loss of 300,000 good manufacturing jobs, the Caledonia land dispute, the unnecessary College of Trades, the eco tax, the HST added to hydro bills, the cancelling of the OLG slots program at horse racing tracks, the carbon tax, the Ontario pension plan—the list is endless.

Here is my last question for the provincial government: Crown land already comprises 85% of the province of Ontario. How much more of our private land and wealth is the provincial government going to seize for itself?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity.

The member who spoke before me has a lack of confidence in the bill for reasons that would be very different from mine. I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all to take on an ambitious goal to protect the Great Lakes. In fact, I would say the people of this province want that to happen.

The concern that I and others have is whether or not the government actually would act to protect the Great Lakes, given a number of events and initiatives on their part: the deep geologic repository that my colleagues from Algoma–Manitoulin and Essex have mentioned, putting a major nuclear waste dump along the shores of Lake Huron, using a technology that has already failed in the United States—there was a substantial fire and a release of radioactivity to the surface.

We have to recognize that if we’re going to protect the Great Lakes, we have to do it in partnership with the other Great Lakes jurisdictions: Michigan, Illinois, Ohio. Frankly, they object to us threatening the Great Lakes with this deep geologic repository. They’re the people we’re going to have to depend on if we’re going to have a cohesive, comprehensive plan to actually protect the lakes.

The other concern I have is that there was an oil spill this winter in Gogama. A CN train went off the rails; large amounts of oil were spilled; there was a substantial fire. There has been a cleanup going on, but to this point there has been no talk, no indication of an investigation that would lead to charges against CN for irresponsibility.

I haven’t investigated it all. Proper investigations have to be done. But if this government isn’t willing to prosecute in those circumstances, when will it stand up for water quality in this province?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I want to address two points in the debate. First of all, I listened to the Conservative member opposite, and he seems to feel that there is no role for government in the environmental protection of our Great Lakes. But when we think of it, we have five Great Lakes. We have a huge population base. We have the cities of Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Thunder Bay, Detroit and numerous other towns in numerous jurisdictions—Ontario, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, a little piece of Pennsylvania, New York.

The only way to coordinate a transnational response to this crisis is through what’s contemplated in this legislation, and that’s the Great Lakes Guardians’ Council. It’s not just Ontarians who have an interest in this; it’s all of those other jurisdictions and subnational jurisdictions, the Canadian government and the American federal government. If there ever was a place for government to play a role, it is in something like this.

The second point that I wanted to address is the consultation with the First Nations and Métis communities. For thousands and thousands of years, the First Nations have been resident on the shores of the Great Lakes: Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and so on. In fact, Chicago is an aboriginal name; Toronto is an aboriginal name. Many other cities have aboriginal names. There are many, many First Nations that are situated along the various shorelines of the Great Lakes. They have built up knowledge over thousands and thousands of years about how to treat the water and how to manage these issues, and they should be consulted.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always a pleasure to get up to respond to one of my colleagues. I disagree with the member opposite, because I think the best way to protect the Great Lakes is to get all the partners together. We have those committees already. We are a part of a US-Canada partnership. I think that that’s where our voice needs to be heard, because, unfortunately, most of the industrial activity happens elsewhere. We are a big part of it—the largest part of it—but I heard earlier talk about the algae blooms in Lake Erie. That originates in Ohio, so we need to work with our partners to get those issues under control.

It’s a great photo op. We can talk a lot about this. There is no funding in this. There is no money for any work to be done on the Great Lakes in this. There are no measurements. This is just another “Let’s see what we’re doing here. We’ve got another title here that we can stand in front of the camera.”

Ontarians are looking for results. They’re looking to work with their partners and get meaningful results that can be measured. They’re looking for improvements, and we’ve had great improvements over the years.

It’s time to get to work at getting Ontarians back to work. The people of Ontario are looking for more from their government and this province. It’s unfortunate; it’s another photo op. We’ve had a couple of pictures on the big staircase. Maybe we can do that tomorrow and say that we have another bill and we’re out there working for Ontario, but we need results. Where are the measurements in this? We don’t see that.

Anyway, it will be, I guess, a work in progress. We support the initiative, but there are tools that are at our command right now that we could be using but we aren’t, and we think that’s a mistake.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to add my comments to the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills’s speech. He’s quite pessimistic about the nature of the bill. I would take a different approach.

There are some things, of course—New Democrats believe that the government should, and has to, play a specific role in ensuring our protection, whether it be protection of one’s self or environmental protection, or health and safety regulations in our workplaces. There are lots of areas where we need to play a role. My concern is that this bill allows them to potentially not play a role and download their responsibility to other jurisdictions. The municipalities, for instance, I think are concerned that this will just be another lever for the government to pull and to off-load responsibility for source water protection when it comes to the health of the Great Lakes.

We are in an age where we know the hazards to our Great Lakes system. We’ve seen them many times before, whether they be ecological spills or pollution, yet we still continue to embark on those types of methods.

I read an

article yesterday that talked about line 5, which is a 62-year-old pipe. It’s an Enbridge pipe under the Mackinac straits. Those who are informed about these types of things are calling on it to be immediately abandoned. It could rupture at any time, and if it does it will cascade oil down through the Great Lakes system in a way in which we could never imagine.

We have to change the way we do things, and hopefully this bill allows us to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has two minutes.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to thank the members from Toronto–Danforth, Willowdale, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and Essex for their comments.

I am strongly opposed to this piece of legislation. It should not pass. It is unnecessary. It is wrongful. We’re identifying problems that don’t exist that we think we need to fix. Actually, water in the Great Lakes system over the recent decades has been improving. We are better educated and better informed about the problems causing pollution. People know the damage it does. Private citizens and industry are doing a much better job in monitoring pollution and taking care of water, and the water quality has improved.

We already have a dozen pieces of legislation in this province that address water quality, including the International Joint Commission between the United States and Canada. That is there already. We don’t need any more government regulations and legislation. We’re overregulated, if anything.

This bill is very vague, non-specific and hands power over to people who are unaccountable. This is an absolute assault on private property rights, which is the basis of our democracy and our freedom, and this must not pass. We have to have respect for the private landowner. This bill does not do that.

This guardians’ council is an organization of independents. We don’t know where they will come from and they certainly do not have, or may not have, the best interests of the private landowner at heart.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to—actually, past 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like everyone to welcome to the Legislature Jon and Susan Lazarus, the parents of Jordan Lazarus, who works in my office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It gives me great honour today to introduce, from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Shirley Parkin-Bobier and Brenda Miller. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Miss Monique Taylor: Once again, I want to welcome the family of our page Bridget Le Donne. Today we have her aunt Tanya Le Donne; her sister, once again, Gabrielle Le Donne—she was a former page; welcome back to Queen’s Park, Gabby—her father, Dino Le Donne; and her friend David Maida. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to welcome to the members’ gallery Nicolas Wolf, an intern in my office here at Queen’s Park and a resident of my riding.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce our guests from Equal Voice: Jessica Brandon and Rita Komarova.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a guest in the west members’ gallery. Christopher Poulos is joining us this morning.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to congratulate Maya Scott from London West, who is page captain today. She is joined today by her mother, Maria Calleja; her father, Ian Scott; and her brother Aidan Scott, who are in the public gallery. Welcome.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’m pleased to welcome Mrs. Eliot and the grades 11 and 12 law students from Barrie Central Collegiate in my riding of Barrie. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please welcome the Girls Government program from two schools in Dufferin–Caledon: from Princess Margaret Public School: Justice, Lily, Brooklynn, Madison, Noelle, Ashley, Jada, Paige, Hannah, Madilyne, Kaitlain, Acadia, Abby and teachers Laurie and Tracey, and from Island Lake Public School: Kylie, Renee, Vicky, Kaylee, Breanne, Maddie, Laura, Tia and teacher Amanda with my outstanding volunteer Lauren MacDonald. They just did a presentation to the Minister of Education, and they rocked it.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would like to welcome a former educator and superintendent from the Greater Essex County District School Board, Rod Peterson.

I’d also like to welcome my daughter Morgan Gretzky and my nephew Duncan Jursic.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In anticipation of something happening in this chamber today involving Terry Fox, the cast from Sheridan College’s production of Waiting for a Miracle: The Terry Fox Story, are with us today. They’ll be performing at 12 o’clock. Their names are Mike Mulrooney, Emma Smit, Micah Richardson, Greg Solomon, Amanda Trapp, Brittany King, Gavin Bowerman, Lucas Popowich, Eric Dahlinger, Sam Gaetz and Rachel Harrison. They’ll be performing at noon in room 247. All members of all parties are invited.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce today in the members’ gallery, former MPP and the one you can all blame for convincing me to run for this job in the first place, Norm Sterling.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome some members from Equal Voice this morning. We have Sarosh Anwar, Farzana Nanji, Alice Propper and Bobbi France. Thank you very much for coming in today and talking about women in politics.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I’d like everyone to give a warm welcome to my mother-in-law, Dorothea Harris, who is visiting from Campbell River, BC. I have to say she’s the best mother-in-law in the world. There she is.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House my constit manager, Janet Haines, and a wonderful volunteer in my office as well, Sheena Haines.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome a couple of women who were here this morning for Equal Voice: Linda Kelso and Jeanne Pacey. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature David, Vicky and their son Nick Villeneuve. Welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Doris Wexler-Charow. She provides rehabilitation to accident victims and she’s going to be here in front of Queen’s Park today at lunchtime with a lot of her friends. They’re protesting cuts to catastrophic injuries in accident insurance.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to, first of all, congratulate page captain Jany Scherer, all the way from Kapuskasing, Ontario; and also, son oncle Matthieu Vallieres, qui est dans les tribunes publiques.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wanted to welcome to the gallery Andrew Ipekian, a lifelong friend, one of the best friends you could ask for and one of the best real estate agents in the city. Welcome, Andrew.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome, from Lanterra construction, Graham Lake, Andrey Azarov and Brett Fahey.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, I’d like to welcome a school from my riding who will be visiting the Legislature today, Henry Hudson Senior Public School.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to welcome the folks who are here today from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, RESCON, and I’d like to invite all MPPs to a luncheon at 12 o’clock in rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to personally congratulate you, as well as myself, on our fifth election. We were elected first on June 3, 1999, and we are the only two remaining of the 18 that were elected that year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Happy anniversary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Today, I’d like to introduce to the Legislature two politically engaged young people from my riding of Davenport, Lianhao Qu and Michelle Knowlton, who are here today with their parents Yan Gu, Nicole Knowlton and Shaun Lewis. Welcome, ladies.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome back to the Legislature page Jessica Terry’s mother, Shena Terry, who has been a regular visitor here, but also her grandparents Debby Parker and John Parker, who are here visiting today. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on the anniversary.

I’ve got two very special guests in the east members’ gallery: a good friend of mine, Norm Gale, chief of the Superior North Emergency Medical Services, and he’s the president of the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs; and Neal Roberts, who is chief of the Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services. Welcome, gentlemen. It’s good to have you here.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s a lovely day, Speaker. I have a number of people here. Meg Cormack is an intern in my office this summer. Welcome, Meg, to the Legislative Assembly. Lauren McDonald is a friend from London and a remarkable advocate for people with disabilities. An additional welcome to Norm Gale and Neal Roberts, our wonderful paramedics.

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

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. My husband, Dr. Randy Harris, is sitting beside my mother-in-law, and I’d like to introduce him today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today an award-winning poet from Windsor, Mary Ann Mulhern. I’ll have more to say about her during my statement this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is the tradition of the Speaker when a former member is in the House, I do try to recognize them officially, even though it has been stepped on again.

Former MPP Norm Sterling served in the 31st to the 39th Parliaments. Welcome, Norm. We’re glad you’re here.

Residential schools

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. I rise to seek unanimous consent for a representative from each caucus to speak for up to five minutes in acknowledgement of the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report issued June 2, 2015.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes per party on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. Do we agree? Agreed.

I understand we have the order understood.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Every day that we are in this Legislature, we gather on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. I am here today and stand to affirm the province of Ontario’s commitment to reconciliation, to supporting survivors and to continuing to build trust with aboriginal partners.

Thank you to the Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair and the entire Truth and Reconciliation Commission for shining a light into one of the darkest chapters of our country’s history.

Thank you particularly to the survivors who shared their experiences and the experiences of those whose voices were lost.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has offered the province of Ontario and all Canadians an opportunity to renew our relationship with First Nation, Métis and Inuit people of this country, and has challenged us to renew our commitment to live together on this land, based on principles of trust, mutual respect and shared benefits. Working with our First Nation, Métis and Inuit partners is a challenge that our province has accepted, but it is work that is far from complete.

This painful

chapter in our shared past is one in which Canada practised state-sanctioned abuse and assimilation. Over a period of generations, and under various governments, families were separated and children were deeply harmed, and continue to bear the scars and the consequences of this time. Their humanity was undermined. They were separated from their families and robbed of their youth, their potential, their comfort, their safety and their dignity. This has left a legacy of racism and marginalization that continues to echo in the lives of aboriginal peoples across our society.

We all have a responsibility to work towards reconciliation. Each one of us must ask what that reconciliation means in our own lives: in our work, in our families, in our places of worship, in our churches and in our broader communities.

I’m very pleased to join my fellow Premiers across Canada as we take steps towards reconciliation. We cannot change our past, but by unearthing the truth and truly understanding its meaning, we give ourselves the power to change the future.

Mr. Speaker and fellow MPPs, this is an important moment in our relationships. The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and what happened to generations of First Nation, Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada, must never be forgotten and must be known and understood by all, if we’re to forge a future that is worthy of the inclusive and compassionate society for which we all strive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, let me put a human face on this issue with a very human story.

There is a book—and I would urge all members to have a look at it—on residential schools in Ontario. There is a

chapter on a residential school at Six Nations, near Brantford, in your riding.

Just let me, for a second, read one paragraph: “The British North America Act ... gave” the Prime Minister of the day “and the Canadian government complete control over the country’s aboriginal people. The government began” to establish “Indian boarding schools. Living at these schools, away from their families, the children could be completely controlled by the staff. Through a process known as assimilation, the children’s beliefs and behaviours would be forcibly adjusted to the European way of life.

“The model for these schools”—that is, throughout Canada—“was the Mohawk Indian Industrial School (also known as the Mohawk Institute), in Brantford, Ontario.

A former British army officer was in charge. The harsh daily routine, rules and regulations, were based on strict army training`... the Mohawk Institute inspired the system that followed.”

Speaker, I was invited by Chief Ava Hill at Six Nations to visit the remnants of that school. It’s in a building now—it’s still there—and I was given a tour of the building. It was a visceral experience for me.

I will tell you two things that I saw. One, the students at the school had a nickname for the school. It was called the Mush Hole. Why was it called the Mush Hole? We were taken down to the basement, and there were huge kettle drums in which mush—food—was prepared. That is what the students at the school ate, hence the nickname for the school: not the Mohawk Institute, but, in the aboriginal community, it was known as the Mush Hole. The students had great fear of being picked up or sent to the Mush Hole.

The other part that stood out in my mind—and it was an emotional experience—I was taken to the third floor. Some of the students had pried out the bricks. There was an inner wall and an outer wall. Normally there would be insulation between the two walls. They had pulled out the bricks and made a little cave between the walls. We went in there, and what we saw was a hiding place for young students. Littering the floor of this hiding place were the bits and pieces that a child experiences in their life.

There were a couple of candy wrappers; there were some torn pages from a comic book; there was a glove; there was a sock. There were the other things that children leave behind in their play places. These children hid out between the walls to escape the harshness of this residential school.

In the book, there is a short quote from a resident of the residential school. His name was Geronimo Henry. He was a resident there from 1942 to 1953. He said, “They tried to convert me in there. They took away my ceremonies, my rituals and my language. They tried to assimilate us. They told us our religion and our rituals were the devil’s work ... they took away my language, my own spiritual beliefs, and my culture.” He lived in that environment for nine years.

It was a harsh, bleak and loveless setting. That’s what I felt when I left the environment. It was a visceral experience—one of the most moving that I’ve had—that puts this in a real, real, live context.

We are doing a number of things to ensure that Ontarians and the rest of Canadians have their own experience or understanding of what has happened in the residential school system. We’ve done a lot of things, but the thing that I’m most proud of, as I know the Premier and the Minister of Education are, is we have designed a curriculum to include the aboriginal residential experience in the curriculum.

Our sense is that if students and, indeed, their parents and members of this Legislature were to leaf through this book, they would have a whole different, qualitative sense of what the residential school system was about and why the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was so important.

There are many other things that we’ve done. I just wanted to leave you with that visceral insight. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it’s with great respect toward our aboriginal brothers and sisters that I’m pleased to rise in this House today on behalf of the PC caucus and leader Patrick Brown to recognize and welcome the hard work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission since it was formally struck on June 1, 2008.

With the release of the report and its 94 recommendations yesterday, I must say that it provides a strikingly sad glimpse into a part of our collective history as Ontarians and as Canadians.

I would first like to thank the chair of the commission, Justice Murray Sinclair, as well as commissioners Marie Wilson and Wilton Littlechild, along with all those who previously served on the commission, as well as those whose immense contribution led us to today.

I would especially like to thank and commend the over 6,750 individuals and residential school survivors who provided the collective voice for the report by sharing their own first-hand accounts, to painstakingly recall and document experiences from the past.

Reading through the “The Survivors Speak” component of the report was particularly powerful for me. When taking a step back and considering what the individual children must have felt as they were forced into residential schools, you can’t help but share part of their pain. To me, this report is about those children.

The first-person accounts of children and the way their families were changed and torn apart by the enrolment in residential schools is truly tragic. Of the over 150,000 First Nations children who passed through the Indian residential school system across Canada, the human toll is staggering. One out of every 25 First Nations children who attended residential schools died there and were buried there, oftentimes without their families being notified.

Just as the legacy of the residential schools spans generations, so too must the subsequent education of future generations. I’m pleased to see the government including that in the school curriculum.

It is our hope that our collective attitude has changed in this country and that greater understanding of the lives and traditions of our aboriginal peoples will continue by building trust and contribute to the healing process.

I was proud in 2008 when Stephen Harper made the historic apology, on behalf of all Canadians, in which the federal government recognized that the great harm caused by Indian residential schools had no place in Canadian society.

I’m also proud that Canada is one of the very few countries in the world where treaty rights are enshrined in our Constitution.

Even with these national strides, it is impossible to read the tragic stories and first-hand accounts without emotion. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we cannot undo what has been done in the past.

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will help future generations to learn from this element of our collective history and, in time, bring some closure, we hope, to the terrible legacy of residential schools.

Mr. Speaker, the PC caucus believes that the report is another step along the path to promoting reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, and we look forward to continuing the work it will take to bring forgiveness, healing and true reconciliation to all. Thank you. Meegwetch.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All those who walked yesterday to mark the end of the formal truth and reconciliation process know that when one journey ends, another one often begins. Thanks to the work of the commission, the world now knows more about the pain that the survivors and victims of the Indian residential schools were forced to endure.

New Democrats hope that survivors, their families and the communities forever changed by this terrible legacy can now start new journeys.

Governments all across Canada, including Ontario, must start their own journeys today.

The legacy of residential schools continues to cast a dark shadow over our province. Residential schools denied children the sense of self that comes from being proud of one’s heritage, language, culture and traditions. These children were neglected. They were mistreated. They were abused, and sometimes they were killed.

Tearing families apart, stripping away language and culture, substandard education and the destruction of community, all led to widespread poverty, which remains rampant in First Nations communities today.

For too many, neglect, mistreatment, abuse and death remain the present realities of aboriginal people, particularly women. New Democrats are proud to join with Justice Sinclair in his call for a national inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women across this country.

The findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission demonstrate more than simply a historic wrong. They demonstrate an ongoing failure to live up to our responsibilities to care for every person in our province. There are First Nations communities in Ontario that still rely on diesel generation for electricity, that lack access to clean drinking water, proper education, proper health care and good-paying jobs. It is unacceptable that there are people living in Third World conditions in a province as wealthy as ours, Speaker

So, yes, today we do stand on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, but too often that recognition is as close as we get towards realizing our responsibilities to First Nations families.

It is incumbent upon all of us not to allow this report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to gather dust somewhere on a shelf. This report should be seen as a call to action. It should drive us to recommit to building a stronger relationship—as equals—with First Nations governments and First Nations peoples. We owe it to all of those who suffered and continue to suffer. We owe it to them to continue to work to build a better future together with our First Nations partners—a future based on mutual respect, equality and truth.

I know the minister spoke about the curriculum initiative. I laud the government for that, and I only hope that that curriculum is, in fact, mandatory for every single student in Ontario to participate in, because Canada, Ontario and all of our citizens will be better for it.

Let us each commit today to do our

part in this great, historic and ongoing journey of reconciliation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their comments. I can’t help but make a comment myself. I grew up one block away from the Mush Hole. I crossed the playground every day when I went to school, and I didn’t know what I was watching. And to some of those who are now friends of mine: I didn’t know what was going on. To them, I say I’m sorry. And I thank all of you for the comments that you’ve made today. Thank you.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is now time for question period. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you for your words as well, very emotional words.

My question is for the Premier. Your budget is being presented today for the final vote. In the pre-budget hearings held throughout Ontario we heard from all walks of life. People said, “Do something to help families struggling to pay their hydro bills.” Businesses told you, “Get out of our way so we can create jobs and restore the Ontario that you’ve ruined.” But you did neither. Instead, you dug deeper into the pockets of families and seniors and you put forward a bill that makes it even more expensive to do business in Ontario. Premier, why do you continue to refuse to listen to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite was excited when the northern industrial energy rate program was announced as being permanent. I know he understands that that is a real boon to industry in the north. I know that when constituents come to him, he talks to them about the programs that are in place in order to mitigate the cost of hydro. I’m sure that he lets seniors and people on low income know that there are programs in place to support them. I’m sure he lets them know about that.

He also knows that some of those, like making the northern industrial energy rate program permanent, were part of our budget.

I say to the member opposite, there was much in our budget, whether it’s the investments in infrastructure, so the roads and bridges in communities in his area and around his community, or whether it’s the increase in the minimum wage that will help people in this province—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, it’s clear what’s actually happened to Ontario under your term. We now have the highest hydro rates in North America. They went up 15% last month alone, and with your fire sale of Hydro One, they’re going to rise even higher.

Premier, we have the highest payroll taxes in Canada, and with your pension tax, they are poised to rise even higher. That’s why GM, Ford, Chrysler, dozens of industries and our largest retailers banded together with 50 chambers of commerce to say that you’re wrong.

We had 2,700 fewer businesses in Ontario last year than the year before. They’re not out of business, Premier; they’re out of Ontario.

All the experts have told you to change course. Premier, why do you continue to ignore them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There is a range of issues that the member opposite has raised, but let me just say to him that it is very important to us to recognize that Ontario, once again this year, is the number one jurisdiction for direct foreign investment in North America. That is a very important fact for us to understand. The conditions that are in place in Ontario are drawing business and drawing industry to the province.

The other issues that he has raised in terms of the need for an enhancement to the pension plan and our response to the federal government, which is not interested in enhancing the Canada Pension Plan—we are putting forward an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. That’s to solve a problem; the problem is that people cannot save enough. What the business owners have said is, “Be careful with the design.”

We are listening to them. We are listening to the business owners across the province. The Associate Minister of Finance is talking to people—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, as usual, you say one thing, but the complete opposite is true. Your pension tax will hurt businesses and families. Your Hydro One fire sale will drive up hydro rates and hurt families and seniors.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The officers of the Legislature will lose oversight and your Hydro deal will be done in complete secrecy. All this is so you can continue your infrastructure charade. You say you need the money for transit, but it was already in last year’s budget without the money from the pension tax and the Hydro fire sale. It’s all a ruse. It’s all a shell game. You are so desperate for cash, and everybody in this building knows it.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, will you stand down your final budget vote today and take a long, hard second look at the damage it’s going to cause Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the people of Nipissing alone, but I think many people across the province would also be interested to know that the member opposite and his party think that the Canada Pension Plan is a tax, because that’s the extension of what he is saying. He is saying that an enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan that we would put in place, is a tax. That’s not what pensions are. Pensions are about putting an investment—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The young people, the 20-, 30- and 40-year-olds in Nipissing, in Renfrew and across this province, are not able to save enough, even when they have jobs. The fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: A pension, Mr. Speaker, is not a tax. We are listening to businesses and individuals around the province on the design.

In terms of Hydro One, we are building transit. We are building transportation infrastructure. It was in our budget that one of the ways we were going to pay for that was through—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Former Premier Dalton McGuinty once said this about privatizing Hydro One: “Selling off a natural public monopoly is a bad idea....

“It’s a quick fix, and it’s a bad one....

“They are prepared to sell off our one and only electricity highway.” Perhaps he should have ended by saying, “unless it’s the Liberals and they’re desperate for cash.”

Former Liberal cabinet minister and energy critic Sean Conway said this about the sale of Hydro One: “It is unacceptable that there is no public oversight or accountability.” Perhaps he should have clarified this with, “unless hiding things saves the Liberals from future scandals.”

Minister, is it not true that you’re rushing headlong into the fire sale of Hydro One because you’ve maxed out the provincial credit cards, and you want to avoid any scrutiny from the Hydro One scandals to come?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member for Whitby–Oshawa said on March 5, 2015, “As Premier, I will order an immediate review of all assets owned by government....

“Every dollar made will be invested in new infrastructure right across the province....

“Let’s use the full value of these assets to build the roads, highways, subways and infrastructure that every Ontarian can use.”

Let’s hear about Patrick Brown when asked about asset modernization: “I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. I generally think market conditions would be helpful for a lot of government agencies.”

In the supplementary, I’ll speak to their white policy paper.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: We all know that you want the Ombudsman’s report into Hydro One’s scandalous billing practices to just go away. However, customers of the utility will not soon forget the anxiety and distress that you caused them when the amounts of incorrect bills were automatically withdrawn from their bank accounts, and customer service agents at Hydro One treated them like they were the thieves when they tried to get the errors corrected. Yet no one at Hydro One has been fired, even though customers were often treated with disdain, and managers tried to obfuscate the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Minister, is it not time that openness and accountability be restored and those who were in charge of this billing fiasco be terminated?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a wake-up call to the truth. The Legislature requires the new Hydro One to set up an office of an ombudsperson. We’ve retained the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, to oversee the implementation of an ombudsman in Hydro One to ensure transparency and accountability.

No government in recent memory has expanded the oversight of independent legislative officers as this government has done. We created the position of the Financial Accountability Officer. We made the French Language Services Commissioner independent. We put into place the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. We’ve allocated new powers to the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, and expanded the Ombudsman’s role to include oversight of municipalities, school boards and publicly funded—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That was actually Ontario calling to ask when the truth would be heard from over there.

Minister, Hydro One customers and we in the opposition want decisive action today on the Ombudsman’s investigation. Only Liberals would think that an insincere apology was a proportional response to over 10,000 complaints and businesses being overcharged millions of dollars.

After this morning’s vote, the officers of the Legislature will no longer be able to hold Hydro One or you accountable. Although you may think you’re helping yourself politically by removing this oversight, in reality, without these checks, you will become more arrogant, more reckless, which will lead to even greater scandals in the future. Minister, will you not save yourself from your party’s own hubris and allow the Auditor General and the Ombudsman to continue to investigate Hydro One or, for the last chance, remove any reference to it at all from the budget bill?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As minister, I received the report from the Ombudsman and I referred it to the new chair of Hydro One with a request that it be reviewed to ensure that all recommendations will be implemented, to look at any further issues around the billing issue and customer service issues, and to report back publicly within 40 days.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the new chair of Hydro One is in the process of selecting a CEO of Hydro One. Myself, as minister, and the chair of Hydro One are in the process of restructuring the board of Hydro One.

We’re moving forward with determination—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the second warning—no, sorry; you’re warned.

Wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we’re moving forward responsibly with determination to reposition an asset which will be invested in infrastructure, billions of dollars of infrastructure, which will not require tax increases or—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier stood in her place, looked me in the eye and said, regarding the sell-off of Hydro One, that “it was very clear in our budget, in our platform and in our budget again that we were looking at assets....” Well, Speaker, going to Niagara Falls and standing in front of the Sir Adam Beck dam is looking at a hydro asset. Looking isn’t selling. Recycling isn’t selling. Maximizing isn’t selling. Unlocking isn’t selling.

Will this Premier cut the nonsense and the doublespeak and give Ontarians a chance to have their say by holding a referendum on the Hydro One sell-off?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I turn to the Premier, I’m going to ask the leader to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdrawn, Speaker.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve read these quotes a number of times, and I’ll read them again, one in particular from the 2014 budget. The quote I will read is, “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.”

Actually, those words can encompass a variety of things. That’s why those words were used, because at the time of the budget, the decision had not been made as to exactly what we were going to be doing.

That’s why we had asked Ed Clark and his group to look at the assets, and by that, I mean—you can have a narrow definition of the denotation of “look,” but the connotation of “look” is that we would review, that we would analyze, and that we would then make a decision, and there would be a range of things that we would be considering.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Premier lectured Ontarians about how she had been clear about her plan to maximize assets. Ontarians heard about recycling, unlocking, leveraging, but not a sell-off. People shouldn’t need Google Translate, together with a Magic 8 Ball, to figure out what this Premier is talking about.

The Premier went out of her way to keep Ontarians in the dark about her scheme to sell off Hydro One. That’s a fact, Speaker.

Ontarians actually want to be heard. In a democracy, that is not an extraordinary request when we’re dealing with one of the biggest policy decisions to come our way in a generation.

Will this Premier do the right thing by the people of Ontario and hold a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I would say to the leader of the third party is that she just cannot have it both ways. She cannot read, as everyone did, page 257 of our budget, where we said we’re “exploring options to unlock the full value of a wide range of valuable provincial assets ... specifically, the LCBO, Hydro One” and OPG, and then go out and say on July 9, 2014, and I quote the leader of the third party, “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.’”

I do not believe that the leader of the third party was the only person in Ontario who understood that one of the things we were looking at in that range of options was the potential sale of some of those assets.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve become very accustomed to the wily ways of this government and the way they talk. The Premier did not run on selling Hydro One—end of story. If she doesn’t believe that—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If she doesn’t believe that, then she needs to go out to the Tim Hortons in Hamilton, Windsor, Sarnia, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, or, in fact, when she’s in the Tim Hortons today in Toronto, I encourage her to ask anyone she meets: Do they remember that this Premier was running on a plan to sell off Hydro One? Do they remember at all voting to sell off Hydro One?

I’ve been in those communities, and I can tell you I’ve been hearing from people at town hall meetings across Ontario. Not a single person voted to sell off Hydro One in the province of Ontario.

Will she do the right thing and put this to a referendum?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the leader of the third party were as emphatic in her support for transit and transportation infrastructure, I think she would understand why it is so important that we find a way to make those investments. We were very clear that making those investments was a fundamental part of our economic plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government after government in this province, and in jurisdictions around North America, has put off the investment in infrastructure, which is why those same jurisdictions are looking now to find ways to make those investments, because that neglect has set in.

We are not going to wait any longer. We have been building since 2003, and we are going to continue building. But we cannot do that by only borrowing, which is what the leader of the third party would have us do. We were very clear that there are a range of things we need to do. One of them was reviewing assets—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —unlocking value and using that to invest in future assets. That’s what we’re doing.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Middle-class families deserve a fair shake. They deserve a hydro system that they can afford. They deserve a hydro system that supports jobs and that actually serves the public interest. But instead of fixing Hydro One, this Premier is handing control to big banks, to off-shore investors and to a small group of her powerful friends.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s fearmongering, total fearmongering.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People deserve a say; they deserve a say. Will this Premier put those families ahead of a handful of insiders and give people a say by holding a referendum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment on the specifics of this, but I know that the people of Ontario know that Hydro One is valuable. That’s why the protections that we have put in place are there. We’ve made it very clear that 40% of this company will remain in public hands.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The protections for price controls—the Ontario Energy Board, which sets prices now, will set prices after this arrangement is in place.

We’ve also made it clear that no single entity or individual will own more than 10%. There are controls over the board that will remain in the hands of the provincial government. Those are the protections that must be in place.

This was a difficult decision, but it is the right decision because if we do not do this, we cannot make the investments in transit and transportation infrastructure that apparently the third party doesn’t think are important.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Earth to Premier: Nobody believes any of that about the 40% and about the 10%. Nobody believes any of that. Earth to Premier: Hydro One is the backbone of our economy. It’s what gets electricity to homes and to businesses. People deserve to know that Hydro One is being run in their best interest.

Instead, Hydro One is going to be run to benefit banks, off-shore investors and a small group of the Premier’s powerful friends. Giving people their say is the right thing to do in this circumstance.

Can the Premier tell middle-class families why she’s more interested in hearing from a small group of powerful insiders than she is in hearing from Ontarians themselves about a sell-off of their Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Check your hydro bill in three years and see what it looks like—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Over the last eight or nine years, this government has invested over $33 billion to make the system clean, reliable and affordable. We put ourselves into a surplus position when we had a deficit previously. What we’ve done with that surplus is create the Industrial Electricity Incentive Program, a program that gives up to 50% off a marginal increase in electricity use to businesses.

That includes, for the braying member from Timmins–James Bay, two new gold mines opening in northern Ontario using the IEI Program; last year, Detour Gold opening up a new gold mine, saving $20 million a particular year; creating jobs in Pembroke at MDFP paper board—140 new jobs; in Whitby, Atlantic Packaging, creating 80 jobs with this program that’s based on surplus energy that we have invested in.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People deserve to know that when the Premier says something, she actually means it. They deserve to know that when the Premier stands up in this Legislature and says, “We are not selling off the assets,” the Premier is being honest. It turns out that the Premier is selling Hydro One.

People deserve a Premier who listens to them and who treats them with respect. Will this Premier agree to hold a Hydro One referendum or will she keep telling families in Ontario that she really doesn’t care at all what they think?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think many people in the province of Ontario—certainly everybody on this side of the House—believe that the Premier we have has got the courage to make tough decisions, Mr. Speaker, moving forward. She recognizes that there’s an infrastructure deficit across Canada, including in Ontario, and she has put together a 10-year, $34-billion program to invest in schools and hospitals and transit—

Miss Monique Taylor: Backbenchers for Ed Clark.

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

Finish, please

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s visionary, Mr. Speaker. It takes a lot of guts to make that type of commitment. It’s going to make Ontario more competitive and it’s going to increase our quality of life in this province. So I’m pleased to be on this side of the House, where we’re doing progress rather than being totally negative.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Justice of the peace

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Members may not be aware that the Attorney General has decided to pay the legal fees of former justice of the peace Santino Spadafora, to the tune of $14,000. Spadafora retired days before he was scheduled to appear before the Justices of the Peace Review Council to face a disciplinary hearing for submitting false expenses. There were allegations of 600 false claims for meals, hotels, highway tolls and mileage, in the amount of $16,000. By retiring, the review council lost jurisdiction over Spadafora because he’s not a justice anymore and he avoids the disciplinary hearing. Just so I’m clear, there was no hearing.

Minister, can you explain what justification you used to pay Spadafora’s legal fees?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, thank you for the question. The member is right: Yes, I’ve made the decision to pay on the recommendation of the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Justices of the Peace Review Council has been in place since the 1970s. It’s an independent body that has a mandate to receive and investigate complaints against justices of the peace, and to review and approve standards of conduct. Moreover, they have the legislated responsibility to make recommendations to government about compensation for costs associated with hearings.

Yes, the justice of the peace resigned before the hearing, so there was no hearing, and I’ll explain in the supplementary why I came to this conclusion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It was a recommendation. You’re the minister: You actually get to make the decision. A reasonable person would have to believe that the only reason Spadafora chose to retire early was to avoid the hearing. If the hearing had found him guilty of submitting false claims, he could have been forced to repay that $16,000. Instead, you want to give him another $14,000. Looks to me like Spadafora gamed the system to avoid a disciplinary hearing and to avoid repaying the false expense claims. Do the right thing, Minister: Make the decision today that you will not pay his legal fees.

Interjections.

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

I want to remind all members that once you are warned, the next time I speak to you, you are named.

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: If the member opposite would have taken the time to read—which is public—the recommendation and the reasoning from the Justices of the Peace Review Council, she will have seen that the justice of the peace—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: He did it to avoid the hearing. He resigns with his—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Carleton, come to order—second time.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: —for different reasons retired before the finding was made. The council noted that in the Canadian system of justice it is not appropriate to assume that there would have been a finding of judicial misconduct.

The work of the justice of the peace’s lawyer to narrow the issues ultimately saved considerable costs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I have to say that, after he submitted his letter of retirement, none of the work was compensated, to ensure that the process was not being manipulated.

So yes, after consideration, I have decided to follow the review council’s consideration—

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

New question.

Ontario Energy Board

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: The Liberals are stacking the Ontario Energy Board full of energy insiders and people who have made their careers fighting for higher rates. Marika Hare spent 15 years with Enbridge before she joined the OEB. Then, while at the OEB, she approved a 40% rate increase for her old employer. Now, she’s getting a promotion to vice-chair.

The Premier is also appointing former energy lobbyists and a former Hydro One staffer whose job it was to get higher rates.

The Premier is stacking the OEB with energy insiders. The Premier is putting a lot of faith in the OEB, so why is she appointing and promoting energy insiders, instead of consumer advocates who will stick up for families and businesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I don’t believe that the member really believes the premise of his question. I know he understands that when you put together a board of directors of 12 or 14 people—

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m sure he knows that when you put together a board of 12 or 14 people, you get a selection of expertise on that particular board. You want somebody who can chair an audit committee; you want somebody who has experience in the sector, who is an industrial or business experienced person; you need somebody who can understand human resources. You get a composite of people on the board. So we do not apologize for having people on the Ontario Energy Board who understand the sector and can contribute to a board of directors with that level of expertise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s not just that the Premier is stacking the OEB with energy industry insiders; the government is also looking at cutting supports for customer intervenors who help consumers fight for fair energy rates. It is an awfully strange time for the Premier to be mucking around with the inner workings of the OEB at the same time as she’s engaging in the biggest hydro sell-off since Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.

At the same time that the Premier is appointing and promoting energy insiders to the OEB and selling off Hydro One to the private sector, why is the Premier looking at stopping intervenors from standing up for consumers at the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The current chair and CEO of the Ontario Energy Board, Rosemarie Leclair, is an industry insider. She was formerly the CEO of Hydro Ottawa. Hydro Ottawa comes to this particular board looking for rate increases. I haven’t heard one person suggest that that background experience puts her in a conflict of interest.

We have credible people on the board. They come from a cross-section of expertise in the community, sometimes from outside the province, sometimes from outside the country, because we want objective people on that board. We want people who understand the industry, who understand consumer advocacy, who understand audits and who understand communications. We have all of that on the Ontario Energy Board, and we make no excuse for that.

Pipeline

Mr. John Fraser: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Énergie.

Minister, as you know, TransCanada submitted a project description for the proposed Energy East pipeline project to the National Energy Board. I know that Ontarians, including some of my own constituents in Ottawa South, have voiced their concerns about this proposal: concerns around potential risks to public safety, our lakes and rivers, and our natural gas supply.

Recent federal legislation has limited the scope and time allotted for National Energy Board hearings and can limit community and public participation in the regulatory process. To that end, I understand that many Ontarians are interested in knowing what role the province will have in the regulatory process.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House what role Ontario will play in the hearing process, and what the government is doing to ensure that the voices of Ontarians are heard?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Ottawa South for the question.

Our government believes that it is vital that the National Energy Board only move forward once it adheres to our cabinet-approved principles:

—the highest safety and environmental standards must be met;

—the duty to fully consult with aboriginal and local communities must be met;

—there must be world-leading contingency planning and emergency response programs together with the developer assuming 100% liability for spills;

—they must demonstrate economic benefits and opportunities to the people of Ontario over the short and long term; and

—current consumers of natural gas must be protected with regard to price and supply.

The OEB has engaged with stakeholders, First Nations and Métis communities, and the public, and will complete a report that represents the interests of all Ontarians. This report will inform Ontario’s position at the National Energy Board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer.

I know that my constituents who attended the OEB community consultation session appreciated it very much. I attended the consultation myself, and I can state that these were not only a forum for Ontarians to provide their input but also to learn more about the proposed project itself.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario has been proactive in its approach to Energy East, asking the OEB to undertake a review of the application, which is ongoing, and forming a working group with the province of Quebec to identify common interests and positions concerning this project.

Minister, since TransCanada has filed this application with the National Energy Board I believe that it has effectively suspended the application and is amending it to reflect significant changes to the proposal as it was originally filed.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How is this yet-to-be-seen amended proposal affecting Ontario’s ability to review the application and prepare its intervention with the National Energy Board?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it is vital that all governments take the time to hear from experts, community and municipal leaders, aboriginal groups, business leaders and other impacted groups.

Just today, the Quebec energy minister and I sent a joint letter to the National Energy Board seeking clarification on a number of areas of shared concern, given that TransCanada is significantly amending its application. Elements of the process have become unclear. We expect and deserve to know exactly what those projects will include, and to have the application supported by the highest degree of rigour, analysis and due diligence. We will not compromise the health and safety of Ontarians.

We look forward to a timely response from the National Energy Board and will actively participate in the federal regulatory process once it formally commences.

Assistive Devices Program

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, as of June 1, the Assistive Devices Program is now facing a $20-million cut in funding. These cuts were made without any consultation with the industry and with no cons