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

March 23, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Mar-23 (PDF)

L057 - Thu 23 Mar 2017 / Jeu 23 mar 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 23 March 2017 Jeudi 23 mars 2017

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Attack in London

Introduction of Visitors

Attack in London

Government advertising

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Ontario budget

Hydro rates

Health care

Long-term care

Hydro rates

Climate change

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

International trade

Court facility

Mental health and addiction services

Water quality

Public transit

Hydro rates

Farm safety

Visitors

Deferred Votes

School Boards Collective Bargaining Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les conseils scolaires

Concurrence in supply

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

George Leslie Mackay

Parliamentary democracy

Bangladeshi community

Emergency preparedness

Kivi Park

Boys and Girls Club of Peel

Labour dispute

Greek Independence Day

Grandview Children’s Centre

Introduction of Bills

Supply Act, 2017 / Loi de crédits de 2017

Petitions

School closures

Hospital funding

Public transit

Grandview Children’s Centre

Dog ownership

Property taxation

Freedom of religion and conscience

Lung health

Dental care

School closures

Privatization of public assets

Elevator maintenance

Visitor

Private Members’ Public Business

Tax Fairness for Realtors Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité fiscale pour les courtiers en valeurs immobilières

Ontario Craft Beer Week Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Semaine de la bière artisanale en Ontario

Gasoline Tax Fairness for All Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité pour tous à l’égard de la taxe sur l’essence

Tax Fairness for Realtors Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité fiscale pour les courtiers en valeurs immobilières

Ontario Craft Beer Week Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Semaine de la bière artisanale en Ontario

Gasoline Tax Fairness for All Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité pour tous à l’égard de la taxe sur l’essence

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 21, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

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

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: As a former city of Toronto councillor for over 20 years and as a relatively new member of provincial Parliament, it is my privilege and honour to stand today in the Legislature and speak to Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016. It is a huge bill, amending and repealing many other pieces of legislation to do with how municipalities govern themselves.

As the esteemed member from Oxford mentioned during past debates, I strongly feel that submissions from individuals, stakeholders and municipalities have been invaluable. Thank you to all the contributors.

Many of the amendments, in my opinion, deserve positive acknowledgement, such as that giving councils the power to enact bylaws regarding climate change. Another is a new

section added concerning the establishing of community councils by municipalities. In fact, Toronto city council is already operating four district community councils. Those are the downtown Toronto, Scarborough, Etobicoke, and North York community councils.

But as much as the bill is generally a step in the right direction, there are three areas I’d like to highlight that concern me the most. First is the amendment to

section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which allows local board members and councillors to participate in meetings remotely via an electronic device. Second is the increase of the cap on what a candidate can personally contribute to his or her own campaign during elections under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Lastly is the increase of the contribution limit for elections, from $750 to $1,200 per contributor.

The amendment to allow councillors to participate in meetings electronically—through Skype, teleconference or other methods—is a major step back in accountability. The government claims this bill’s purpose is to increase accountability and transparency, but its contents clearly say otherwise. Perhaps this amendment would not have been such an issue if there were an explanation for it that makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense in it is this: The reason that the amendment was made was so that councillors and board members may participate in meetings, even when weather might normally not have allowed for their participation. This may be a sound argument for improving a councillor’s ability to participate in their meetings in rural and northern Ontario, but the same amendment was also applied to the City of Toronto Act of 2006, which, unless you consider any part of Toronto, from Etobicoke to Scarborough, as rural, makes no sense.

A provision that may make sense for councillors who must drive on roads that receive little to no winter maintenance does not make sense for completely urban cities like Toronto. Looking back through the roughly 25 years of my involvement in municipal politics, I cannot think of a single reason why such a provision would be necessary for Toronto councillors.

While my main issue with this amendment is the increased lack of transparency and accountability that is being introduced with it, the implications are much broader. It is a glaring example that this bill is, in many cases, a set of sweeping changes, blanket legislation that does not take into account the different needs and the characteristics of the very many municipalities that make up Ontario.

One-size-fits-all legislation is not a productive way to update the old Municipal Act. What could have been a great opportunity to really cater to the unique requests and needs of each municipality now comes off as an afterthought.

Another part of the bill that worries me is the changes to the Municipal Elections Act of 1996. It was my assumption that improving our democratic process would be at the forefront of any legislation dealing with campaigning and elections, but for seemingly no reason at all, the amendments in the bill seem to be taking a step backwards, regressing even.

We have heard from many individuals and municipalities that increasing the cap on what an individual can contribute to their own campaign would create an imbalance in the dollar power of candidates. Of course, running an election is far from cheap, but by raising the cap to $25,000, a candidate’s individual wealth, or lack thereof, can become a deciding factor. It should be up to the strength of a candidate’s ability to fulfill their duties, not the strength of their pocketbooks, to win them an election.

A higher cap on a candidate’s personal contribution to their own campaign will definitely put wealthier candidates at an advantage over others. This undermines the principles of electing the best man for the job. Equal opportunities for all the candidates, regardless of their independent wealth, should be respected in any democratic society, especially Ontario’s.

Lastly, the increased cap on individual contributions to a campaign from $750 to $1,200 concerns me. Our own provincial election campaign contributions are capped at $1,200 for ridings that are far larger and more populous than many of the districts a municipal councillor or board member is called to represent. For example, I used to be the Toronto city councillor for ward 42. Now I am the MPP representing Scarborough–Rouge River, which includes both ward 42 and ward 41. In other words, my provincial riding is twice as large as the previous municipal riding.

On top of this, it was a lot easier to fundraise for my municipal elections since the donors receive a cash rebate regardless of their income,

whereas the provincial election donors only receive a tax rebate if they file income taxes. Therefore, it definitely seems to me that such an increase should be justified by further review and scrutiny.

As the critic for city of Toronto issues and the member for Scarborough–Rouge River, I know these amendments would affect the areas I am called on to represent, but as an Ontarian myself I know that the implications go beyond my own municipality. The effects of this bill will be felt far and wide, one way or another, so why don’t we take this chance to do right by all the municipalities and give them the legislation they deserve?

Just to close up, I’m sure the bill is well-intended, but it’s my opinion that we are not doing Ontario right with this one-size-fits-all bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a privilege for me to rise on behalf of my constituents in London West to offer some comments on Bill 68, the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016. As has been said by many of my colleagues within the NDP caucus who have spoken to the bill, this is really one of those pieces of legislation where the question is, where is the meat? It’s a fairly lengthy bill. There are a lot of words in the bill, but there is really not a lot of substance.

However, having said that, one of the changes that I did want to highlight, which I do think is welcome but doesn’t go far enough, is the change to allow council seats to not be considered vacated due to pregnancy or adoption of a child. This is a very important provision. It’s a long-overdue provision. If we want to get more women, particularly more young women, involved in municipal politics, we have to allow for them to run, to serve in elected office and also raise a family.

One of my concerns is that the legislation does not also include amendments to the Education Act, because trustees are in the same situation. Trustees run for elected office; they are under the same kind of requirements. If you miss three meetings in a row, then your seat is considered to be vacated. Without amendments to the Education Act, this means that trustees who become pregnant while in office, who want to raise a child, may have to vacate their seats because the amendment is not included in the Education Act. We need that to be added to this bill in order to make it fair to everyone in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments. I recognize the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair this morning on this great Thursday morning, the day that we get back to the ridings.

Let me make some comments to the member for Scarborough–Rouge River. It seems that the official opposition is obsessed with this electronic participation in meetings. I think they should read the rest of the bill and talk about all the positive things. But let me just focus again—and I’ve done this now, as parliamentary assistant, to answer some of these questions the last few times this bill has been debated—and make it clear that, first of all, AMO and the majority of the municipalities in the province of Ontario have requested options like that. So, Speaker, we’ve listened to municipalities.

By the way, Speaker, I’d be remiss not to say that this is a choice the municipality would make. It’s not mandated. Nobody is holding a hammer over their head. When the opposition makes these comments, I think they remember the dark days when they were in government. They were using a sledgehammer that—Madam Speaker, municipalities didn’t exist. It didn’t matter what they said. They know that that’s true. I was a municipal politician in those days and I know what it was like. I think they’re still stuck back there.

Let me talk about campaign contributions. The member questions the amount that’s allowed—

Interjection.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Yes, Madam Speaker, sorry. I know you’re keeping an eye on me.

I think it’s only fair that municipal politicians, when it comes to election finances, are somewhat equivalent to what we do here at Queen’s Park—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Oh, I’m done.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It’s an honour, as always, to be able to rise in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and represent the fine constituents of Niagara West–Glanbrook. I want to thank all of the honourable members who have spoken so far to this piece of legislation in the lengthy and substantive debate that we’ve had surrounding this piece of legislation so far. I commend them for the due process that they’re giving it and the deliberative debate that we’re having on it.

I want to recognize the sentiment brought forward by the honourable member opposite that he is perhaps frustrated by the perceived lack of ability that we have to notice the good things about this bill. The reality is, while there are perhaps valuable components, there are great flaws. We have to be aware of those flaws. We can’t ignore those flaws. The duty of the opposition is to point out where the government is going astray from what would be in the best interests of the citizens of Ontario.

One of the areas I have a concern with is: I fear that, as this legislation was brought forward, there was insufficient consultation with various municipalities. The one reason I have that is that I asked my mayors. I said, “What do you think about Bill 68? I’d love to hear your concerns. I’d love to hear your thoughts.” It was concerning to me that they said, “Sorry, Bill 68? Come again?” It was surprising, to be honest.

They did say that they felt very strongly that we needed to ensure the inclusion—that they needed to have expanded ombudsman oversight of municipally owned assets, including hydro companies, or if it deals with expanding criteria for closed session meetings. They’re definitely interested in additional options to be made available. They also wanted to make sure that they had a fulsome conversation about this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m proud to stand and contribute to questions and comments on Bill 68.

Speaker, we know that there is a lot of talk around changing the way elections are legislated. We know that there is a lot of talk around how politicians are doing their jobs.

We’re looking to this bill today, and we can also look to the federal government—how one of the promises was to change the electoral system and promise real, effective change. Then they backed off on that. People were looking to have proportional representation be the way the federal government decided, and they changed the whole channel on that.

They also just talked about this in the House of Commons recently, that the government is proposing how Parliament is being designed. One of the proposals that the Liberals are suggesting is that the Prime Minister only report to the House of Commons once a week and take questions for the whole day.

This is a topic of interest. I think it’s also a matter of public interest that we talk about this. But we also have to make legislation work so that the public’s contributions are actually what forms the legislation. I think, in this respect, there perhaps needs to be more discussion around electronic voting. When we’re talking about people not being present to hear a debate and then taking a vote electronically, there are concerns around that. Same issue—I’ll bring it back to the federal government—saying that the Prime Minister should only be there once a week in order to take questions daily.

Speaker, definitely we need to look at our legislation with regard to Elections Ontario and municipal elections, but we need to do this with public input so we can get it right the first time.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Scarborough–Rouge River to wrap up.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I would like to thank all the speakers from the third party and the government. As my NDP colleague said, I think that this bill needs more amendments and we need to hear more from different municipal council representatives, because all different councils, when you look at rural and especially the city of Toronto—one-size-fits-all really doesn’t make sense, which I mentioned. I don’t think we should adopt this bill as it is. I think we need further study.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate? I recognize the member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you, Madam Speaker—I got it right. I know that’s bringing a smile to your face early on Thursday morning.

Thank you for allowing me to rise and speak to this bill today. As you may know, I had the honour and the privilege of being elected to city council for the city of Niagara Falls for a few years. As this bill touches on a number of municipal issues, I’m happy to speak to Bill 68.

I look back on my time on city council with a lot of fond memories. Our council rarely ever fought and we always worked together to put the interests of our residents first. I want to be clear: We didn’t always agree, but we certainly always conducted ourselves in a professional manner.

I think if you ask most people in Niagara Falls they can remember that council was always getting along and putting residents first. Some of the best things around council, quite frankly, happened after council, when we used to go out for beer, pizza, and discuss the council meeting. So I’m proud of the time that I was on council, and I’m certainly happy to speak to the bill.

One of the major issues not discussed here is municipal funding. We know that the last time the PCs were in government, they downloaded the costs of a number of programs onto municipalities. This always seems to be the case when we’re dealing with the PC government. These are costs that cities and towns across the province are trying to figure out how to cover. In Niagara, there’s no bigger example, as my colleagues that are here today from Niagara know, than mental health.

I think it’s important for everybody to listen to this. The PCs were the first ones to start downloading and cutting these costs onto cities that simply didn’t have the budgets to cover the services. Once they started, unfortunately, my colleagues the Liberals continued to do it. The result is now that Niagara’s people struggle to find mental health services. Think about this: One in five—not just in Niagara, but right across the province of Ontario—are suffering from mental health issues. You know what pulls on your heartstrings? That includes our kids.

In Niagara, and I’m sure in other municipalities around the province of Ontario, suicides among young people are up. There’s stress on young people. Some of the reasons for that is that they can’t get the services they need, they can’t get the help early enough. We don’t have the education to pick up on the signs early enough. In my opinion, mental health is a crisis not only in Niagara, but I believe it’s a crisis right across the province of Ontario.

These services are absolutely essential. No person seeking treatment for mental health should have to jump through hoops only to be told the service doesn’t exist. I understand that this is a health care issue, but frankly it’s an emergency. Our towns and our cities need funding to stop it.

But here’s something that we also need—again, I wish some people would listen to this; I know it’s early in the morning, but this is important. They need a return to the 50-50 partnership with the province that allowed the cities to carry their fair share of responsibility. So the city would be responsible for 50%; the province would be responsible for 50%. And you know what, Madam Speaker—and I’m looking at you for a reason, because I know you’re listening—it worked. That’s the issue. Nobody can say it didn’t work; it worked.

Municipalities were able to service their residents, they were able to get the funding, and they were able to provide the service. That’s so important. Until we start dealing with this properly at the provincial level, services will continue to suffer and property taxes will continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, I’ve talked about this issue. I’ve talked about it with my colleagues from Niagara as well.

One of the major issues we’re dealing with in Niagara right now is called an RFPQ process, for our casinos. If you’ll allow me, Madam Speaker, I’d like to explain how this connects with what I was just saying. Right now in Niagara, there’s a real concern that we will not get a major promoter for our casinos as they change who is running them. Right now, they’re there until 2018. They’ve already been told they have to go. Because the RFPQ process has not been open long enough to attract a big name, we’re struggling in Niagara. Woodbine is going to expand.

Eighty per cent of our customers down in Niagara come from Toronto. That’s why we need somebody with a big name, similar to what they have in Vegas.

But here’s the effect. Why is it important? Why is it important to everybody here? Why is it important to the 107 people that are elected here? Because 1,500 jobs depend on this. What kind of jobs are they? They’re good-paying jobs. They have some benefits. Some are unionized, some are not unionized—tourist jobs, long-term jobs. Quite frankly, the reason why casinos were brought in to Niagara Falls and expanded right across the province of Ontario wasn’t for OLG to make money; it was to create jobs in those communities that would host them.

So that means 1,500 livelihoods and families depend on this being done properly. If we don’t stand up for them and do the right thing, what is the point of being elected to this Legislature—when we can’t try to protect good-paying jobs in the province of Ontario?

When it comes to property taxes, all of these residents who work at the casino pay property taxes. If the province doesn’t act and these families lose their jobs, the property tax rate will skyrocket as the city tries to make up for lost revenue—and not just the city, but the entire Niagara region.

Cities and towns are struggling to cover their budgets, as it is. I ask any of my colleagues here, the MPPS that are here this morning, to talk to your city councils. Most are in debt. Most are paying interest payments. Instead of that money going back into the city, it’s going to a bank or a credit union rather than back into our—because they’re running into debt. If you lose taxpayers, what happens to that debt? The debt goes up.

They could step in tomorrow and protect these jobs. That’s the kind of action that would actually benefit our municipality.

Some changes to the Municipal Act are good, and certainly, as the NDP, we appreciate them. But where is the real action? Where is the real movement by this government to help cities and towns? More importantly, where is the real action to help the people who live in the province of Ontario? There are serious municipal issues—and, trust me, I bring them to the attention of every minister in this House. There are serious issues where we could intervene and make a true difference. The casino is just one of them, but it’s an important one.

Let me talk about one part of the bill which addresses the municipal right to pass a bylaw that addresses climate change. I think, if you look carefully at the legislation, the language here may not be necessary as this is already allowed, but I understand why it’s here. Make no mistake about it—and I want my colleagues over here to hear this. Make no mistake about it: Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time.

I’m going to repeat that, particularly for my young colleague from Niagara. Make no mistake about it: Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. I think even more than being a defining issue of our time, it’s a defining issue for the generation that will take over this place when we all leave.

I know many members in this House have fought passionate battles over things very close to their heart. Whether it’s fighting against poverty, fighting for affordable housing or fighting for the right to a decent job that allows you to raise your family and put your children through school, there is always a cause that drives people to seek election in this House. For me, it was my grandkids.

I have a lot more to say. I have a lot more pages here, but obviously my time is running out. It’s all about my grandkids. It’s all about my kids. I want to make sure that when I leave they can breathe the air, they can drink the water right here in Ontario—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, it’s a pleasure to rise in the House and to speak a little bit about Bill 68 and some of the comments from the member for Niagara Falls. He did occasionally allude to Bill 68.

The first point that he tried to make was that apparently we need to support municipalities. Well, I’m certainly going to refute what he had to say on that because our government has done an amazing amount for municipalities. I think we all recall the downloading that the PC government did in the late 1990s, downloading costs on the backs of municipalities and residential property taxpayers. We have uploaded costs back to the province, giving municipalities more room in their budgets to invest in local priorities. By 2017, in fact, municipalities have benefited from over $4 billion in ongoing provincial support. We’ve uploaded nearly $2 billion this year.

The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund: We have, just in 2017, $505 million in unconditional support to municipalities—primarily, in fact, rural and northern municipalities who have the greatest need.

The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund: $100 million a year. That will increase to $300 million a year in 2018-19.

And, of course, the transit funding. It goes on and on in terms of what we have done for municipalities.

I have the great honour of representing four municipalities in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham. I know that they’re going to be welcoming a number of these initiatives in this bill. They’re already working on codes of conduct and sharing integrity commissioners to reduce costs—all of which is what we have in this exceptionally excellent bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Those of us in the Legislature here this morning who have served on local town or city councils or regional councils—including the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who I thank for being here in the House again today to listen to debate. They’re aware of how increasingly complex it’s become to work in the municipal sector but also to serve on the councils and to make the types of decisions that they have to make on a day-to-day basis.

The goal all along for the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus in debating Bill 68 is to ensure that the Municipal Act functions as an effective document that enables local governments to operate in an efficient, effective manner, helping them to continue to provide the type of high-quality services to the citizens that they serve.

The recent changes that are being debated today in the Legislature and have been debated previously—it’s been a robust debate. The points of view provided by all parties I think have contributed to the type of act that we have to make a decision on going forward.

But, again, our caucus has encouraged the government to investigate ways to ensure a level playing field between incumbents and challengers and, really importantly, to determine ways that the province and municipalities can assist in educating and informing on the importance of municipal elections so that voters increase their awareness and, subsequently, their turnout going forward. My hope, as we continue to debate Bill 68 and the relative merits of it, is that we talk about the specific amendments that have been debated in this Legislature thus far and hopefully will continue to be debated in committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Niagara Falls on his comments because I think he brought up some very important issues that we haven’t talked about nearly enough during this debate. Those are the issues of mental health, which have been exacerbated by municipal downloading, and also the issue of jobs. We know there is a connection between jobs and mental health. In my community of London, which has been one of the communities across this province hardest hit by the collapse of the global economy back in 2008-09, we have seen a net loss of jobs that has not returned. At the same time we are seeing an ongoing crisis of mental health.

This week, I just learned that London Health Sciences Centre was at 152% occupancy in its psychiatric ER, and 26 mental health patients were waiting for beds in my community. A lot of this is connected. We know that mental health pressures are affected by social determinants of health, by the lack of adequate housing, by the lack of jobs, by the lack of secure employment for those who are able to find any kind of work.

We saw the PCs begin the downloading of social housing onto municipalities. We see the Liberals continue that downloading. We see our social housing stock in grave disrepair. Municipalities are crying for funds in order to address the quality of social housing. Speaker, Bill 68 has a lot of words, but it doesn’t really address the real issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: You know, we’re supposed to comment on the comments from the member from Niagara Falls, but, frankly, I’m not sure he talked much about the bill. But that’s okay, though, because he highlighted some stuff that I might respond to.

Speaker, I would say to you that when it comes to supporting municipalities—my God, we went through a pretty dark era. I was there—all the uploading. The MOU table that we now have set up for municipalities to make sure that we talk about issues—I know my colleague mentioned the uploads and the transfers of money that have been going to the municipalities on a regular basis in public transit, and the pieces that are important.

I guess I should say before I run out of time, Speaker, that in a way I am glad that the member from Niagara Falls didn’t speak much about the bill because that gives me the impression that things are good with the bill and they’re going to support it. I may be stepping out of turn here, but I get that sense from the lack of comments.

I wish you would have talked about the 20-week parental leave for municipal politicians, and how important that is because some council members were worried that after three consecutive meetings they would be out of an elected job. We didn’t talk about that.

He did touch a little bit on climate change and how important it is. I’m disappointed he didn’t refer to some of the mechanisms in the bill that would allow municipalities the flexibility to work around plans to deal with climate change; give them that flexibility because it’s not the same right across the province. We will allow the municipalities the flexibility to come up with plans that are best for their communities.

I see I’m out of time, Speaker. Thank you so much.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’ll return to the member—no. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook—sorry.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Sorry, I believe we do have another hit.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): No, I am going to return to the member from Niagara to wrap up this debate.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I have no problem allowing the young guy to speak. I hope he’s going to speak on climate change.

I’m going to address the Liberals really quick, Madam Speaker, if you don’t mind, in my last couple of minutes. For them to stand up here and say that we’re not talking about the bill—I’m going to disagree with you. And you can disagree with me. That’s fair. That’s what we do here.

I talked about the 50-50 split. You can tell me how much money you’ve spent over the last number of years, and that’s fair—because you probably have. I don’t have your stats in front of me. But I’m going to tell you that for a number of years the 50-50 split, before it was taken away from the municipalities, worked—it worked. Far more money was going back to municipalities in the province of Ontario than you’re reinvesting. That’s one thing.

To stand up here and say that mental health doesn’t fall back on municipalities—are you kidding me? It’s one of the biggest crises in this province today, and every municipality has to deal with it. The police, by the way, because of funding, are dealing with mental health. They’re spending half their shift in hospitals and they can’t leave until that particular patient is taken care of, leaving our streets unsafe. For you to say that I’m not talking to the bill, I disagree with you.

Then, the last thing I talked about, quite frankly, was the casino in Niagara. Those jobs in Niagara pay taxes. Do you know where they pay the taxes to? For my colleagues, in case they don’t know, they pay them to the municipality. The mayor, Jim Diodati, and the regional chair, Alan Caslin, have been talking to your government, saying why it’s important to make sure we have a major player there: so we protect the jobs, so they pay the taxes, so we can do the roads, the sewers and all the construction that goes on with that.

So I’m going to disagree with your comments that I didn’t speak to the bill. I think the issues that I raised during that 10 minutes are so important to the residents of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m happy to speak to this bill, Bill 68. This is a good piece of proposed legislation. The part that I first saw, a piece that caught my attention, was the 20-week parental leave for elected officials. I think it’s a good piece within this legislation, and there are so many additional pieces that are part of this legislation that I think will be good for municipalities.

Empowering municipalities to address climate change through locally passed laws, broadening municipal investment powers and improving access to justice by allowing integrity commissioners to investigate complaints—this is a good piece of legislation and it’s good for municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate in the Legislature today and prior to today, there’s no question in my mind that this legislation has a lot of support, not only from the government side but from the opposition side. In fact, the member from Oxford said, “As I said at the beginning, there are a lot of organizations that worked hard on the municipal legislation review to put forward good ideas and recommendations for this bill. I am pleased to see some of these ideas incorporated....” That was from the member from Oxford.

The NDP member from Windsor–Tecumseh said, “This bill is a good bill; it needs some tweaking, but it is a good bill. Earlier, I commended the minister and the previous minister for bringing this forward.”

Even through the committee process, it got support from members of the opposition. The MPP for York–Simcoe said, “I think this provides us with a clear case to be made for committee hearings for this bill, in areas of the province, to hear about how these changes will impact the municipalities, large and small, southern and northern.”

Again, the member from Windsor–Tecumseh said, “I look forward to taking

part in the clause-by-clause participation and the hearings when we get this bill to committee....”

Speaker, as you know, this bill has had over 10 hours of debate here in the Legislature, and as a result I move that the question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Minister Coteau has moved that the question now be put. I just want to let the members in the chamber know that there were 29 speakers and over 10 hours of debate on Bill 68. Given this information, I am satisfied there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion that the question be put now, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be put now, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I believe we’ll be deferring this vote to the end of question period.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Orders of the day.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Speaker, no further business.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): We will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0945 to 1030.

Attack in London

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period in remembrance of those who lost their lives yesterday outside the British House of Commons.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With a slight amendment: I’m asking that it be done after introduction of guests.

After introduction of guests, the government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to have a moment of silence for the tragedy in London. Do we agree? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to introduce, from my riding, the mother of our page Nicholas Bhola. Dharamdai Bhikam-Bhola is in the gallery today here to see her son as a page.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome members of OPSEU: Greg Wilson and Robin Reath. They’re here all the way from London to meet with MPPs today about stopping the privatization of the LCBO.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m very pleased to introduce guests of page captain Catherine Rootham from Ottawa West–Nepean: aunt Kathy Ho, aunt Audrey DeMarsico, uncle Alex Rootham and cousin Nicholas Rootham. I’m very, very pleased for you to join us here today.

Mr. Michael Harris: I would like to welcome my legislative assistant Jacqueline Dobson back to the Legislature. It will be Jacqueline’s last day in my office as she’s heading into the private sector—the real world. I’d like to thank her for her two years of service at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce Gareth Jones, Denise Davis, Rick Woodall, Anne Makela, Jennifer Van Zetten, Colleen MacLeod, Mark Larocque, Clarke Eaton and Megan Park from OPSEU, who are here today. Thank you all for coming.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Ms. Sayeh Hassan, who is visiting the House. This afternoon, from 12 o’clock to 1 o’clock, in room 228 she will be holding a session on human rights in Iran. I invite every member of this House to attend.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome, from North Bay, our LCBO’s Amanda Pellerin and Judy Jones; and, from the LCBO in Sudbury, James Kensley.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce some of the LCBO workers here with OPSEU today: Frank Gullace, Rob Hawken, Bonnie Jolley and, from Windsor, Mike Peris and Jennifer Van Zetten. Thank you for being here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome Jeffrey Weston from my riding of Barrie, who is here today with the LCBO OPSEU members. Welcome, Jeffrey.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m pleased to welcome Karley George to Ontario’s Legislature. She is one of the Daughters of the Vote. Now she’s got the bug, and she’s coming here all the time.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It gives me great pleasure to introduce what is my constituency staff and almost my extended family: Eathan Quinn, Julia Girmenia, Zahrah Munas, Angus Affleck; and, the newest member of my ministry’s staff, Deidre Beaumont. They are over there.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to Dianne Perry from OPSEU from Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know that we have OPSEU members from across Ontario, and for those who were not named from various points across Ontario here today: Welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, I am pleased to welcome guests of page captain Frances MacGregor: her mother, Daphne Mitchell, and her grandparents Nancy and Lori Lorimer. They’re in the public gallery.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Rick Woodall, who is here from Muskoka with the LCBO and OPSEU. I look forward to meeting with him this afternoon.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think all members of the House would like to join me in wishing Rob Benzie a very happy birthday.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’d like to welcome a few guests in the gallery this morning: Laura Casselman, the accounts director from Brown and Cohen; and Scott Grant, Ping Wu and Martin Haalstra, all of whom are here from the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario, PEGO.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Rachel Brunet from OPSEU, in today. We had a great meeting this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: From the riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North, I would like to introduce the mother and grandfather of page Frances MacGregor: Daphne Mitchell and Lori Lorimer.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure to welcome the future leaders of Ontario from the Neil McNeil grade 10 civics class, and their teacher.

Attack in London

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Seeing no further introductions, by motion, could I have everyone rise to pay tribute to and keep in our minds and hearts those who were affected by the attack in London.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Government advertising

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, March 20, 2017, the member from Simcoe–Grey, Mr. Wilson, rose on a point of privilege concerning recent government advertising or announcements on electricity pricing. According to the member, the items—which were issued or authorized by the government, a private utility company and a political party—allude to future price cuts and other changes in the electricity sector. The member alleges that they constitute a prima facie case of contempt because they presume a timeline and outcome of forthcoming legislation. The government House leader, Mr.

Naqvi, also spoke to the matter and subsequently filed a written submission. The member from Simcoe–Grey then filed another written submission in reply.

Having had the opportunity to review the written notice of the member from Simcoe–Grey, the written submissions of the government House leader and of the member from Simcoe–Grey, Hansard, items provided by the member from Simcoe–Grey and other relevant precedents and authorities, I am now prepared to rule on the matter.

Before I turn to the substance of the member’s allegation, let me remind the House generally about the nature of contempt as partially set out in the classic definition in Erskine May on pages 251, 260 and 261 of the 24th edition:

“Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his” or her “duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary....

“Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority, may constitute contempts.”

I will now turn to the substance of the member’s allegation. I have reviewed the items provided to me by the member from Simcoe–Grey. One item, a Ministry of Energy document—it is difficult to determine whether it is advertising—refers to the government’s intention to introduce legislation that would, if passed, provide for changes to the global adjustment refinancing.

The other items are two Twitter retweets, a Facebook advertisement, a screen-grab from the Liberal Party of Ontario website, and a voice advertisement that concludes with the words “paid for by the government of Ontario.” Each of these latter items make unqualified and definitive assertions, such as “Your household hydro bill won’t increase beyond the rate of inflation for at least four years” and “25% off starting this summer—Ontario’s Fair Hydro Plan” and “Starting this summer, households will receive an average of 25% off their bill.”

The member from Simcoe–Grey asserts that these kinds of statements in the various communications provided to me amount to a demonstrated contempt, because they predict and presume the outcome of the decision of the House in first implementing the legislative changes required to give effect to these pledges.

The message conveyed to the reader or listener of the various communications is certainly definitive: The reduction of the electricity rates will happen. However, for the Speaker to conclude that the communications constitute a prima facie contempt of the House because of their definitive, unconditional language, as the member from Simcoe–Grey invites me to do, then I must first have found the contempt exists because the role of the House and the outcome of a future matter before it are both taken for granted and assumed to be a foregone conclusion.

Moreover, to combine these conclusions together would further require that the Speaker is also capable of conducting or has some sort of jurisdiction to conduct a legal analysis of the legislative framework that is necessary to produce the results alluded to in the ads and other items. Members know that it is well-established precedent that it is not the Speaker’s role to undertake legal analysis, make legal findings or attempt to interpret the law.

It is therefore not possible for me to determine whether or not the assembly has a necessary role in the implementation of the measures, certainty about which must be a precondition to a prima facie finding that such a role has been or is being undermined, diminished, obstructed, impeded or disparaged.

The statement of the Minister of Energy that he will be introducing legislation at some point, as noted by the member for Simcoe–Grey, does not alter this limitation on my authority or sphere of jurisdiction. It is not open to me to interpret or presume what might be in that possible legislation.

Consequently, I cannot find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

Given this finding, it is not necessary to consider the timeliness arguments raised by the government House leader and the member from Simcoe–Grey, apart from reminding members that timeliness in raising a point of privilege continues to be a requirement.

I thank the member from Simcoe–Grey and the government House leader for their contributions to this matter.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education. The announcement of a financial literacy pilot program is an important first step, but in a Toronto Star article, financial literacy expert Tricia Barry argues that the mandated financial literacy needs to be introduced much earlier—in fact, she suggests, by grade 6. She says, “Elementary students should not be left behind.” But this government is doing exactly that by saddling them with thousands of dollars of debt because of their overspending. In fact, it’s nearly $23,000 a student.

How long is the Minister of Education going to keep elementary students in the dark about her government’s fiscal mismanagement?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this question. I’m very pleased to rise in the House today and to talk about how we’re investing in our students in Ontario in 21st-century learning. Of course, that includes financial literacy.

I committed in November to make financial literacy a mandatory part of the grade 10 curriculum, and that is exactly what we’re doing. In addition, since 2011, in fact, we have made financial literacy a part of our elementary school curriculum starting in grade 4 right through to secondary school to grade 12, so that as students move through the grades they’re acquiring this really good knowledge. We’re taking this a step further by making it a mandatory part of the grade 10 curriculum. We’re ensuring that our students have what they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Minister, Kimia Kamarhie, who teaches careers at Thornhill Secondary School, had this to say: “Both money skills and digital literacy are critical tools for high school kids and subjects they’re eager to learn about.”

Speaker, we just wish the Liberal caucus members were as eager to learn about money skills.

My question to the minister is, if she had introduced this earlier, would Ontario still be the most indebted subnational government on the planet?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite himself has said that he’s happy with the new approach—he said that to me, actually, personally—we’re taking to financial literacy. So I know that he supports this direction and this investment.

I do want to let the House know—because we’re very excited about the work we’re doing in 21st-century learning in Ontario and the investments we’re making in our schools, in our teachers, in our students—that just this morning I was at St. Mary academy, with the member from Davenport, to talk about SHSMs, those Specialist High Skills Majors programs that are world-leading programs, teaching skills and real-world knowledge that they will need to build on. We’re going to continue to invest in that, including information and communications technology. And of course, digital learning is a really important aspect of our curriculum in Ontario. We will continue to lead.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Well, we all know what happens when you don’t have financial literacy. You get 13 consecutive Liberal budgets that throw hard-working Ontario families into debt. You get 13 consecutive Liberal budgets that make life harder for families and seniors. You get 13 consecutive Liberal budgets that mean people work harder, pay more and get less.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Education be requiring her caucus colleagues to participate in the financial literacy pilot project?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted that the member opposite is aware of our pilot project, 29 pilots that will be happening across the province, involving our educators as researchers, involving our students and the input.

We have heard from students in Ontario that they want financial literacy. We’ve been working together to ensure that this is part of our curriculum, a part of the mandatory course in grade 10.

We’re really thrilled with the direction that we’re taking, ensuring that students have the real-world knowledge that they need to succeed. We’re giving them the tools that they need in 21st-century learning.

I thank the member for this question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. When the Premier stumped for the Prime Minister during the election, she promised that it would reap benefits for Ontario. But it looks like the Premier traded her favours for nothing more than a campaign stop during the Whitby–Oshawa by-election. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance looked disparaged, deflated and defeated when addressing the federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, what else did the minister ask for that he didn’t receive? Does the finance minister need to rewrite the Ontario budget because the Prime Minister didn’t give him what he wanted?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government came out with their second budget, reflecting on the deficiencies of the previous government that did nothing for Ontario, provided no investments to grow our economy, leaving us empty, as we’ve moved forward and stimulated growth.

We invested heavily. We’ve taken the steps to come to balance this year, recognizing the measures that we’ve done to grow the economy, something that that party across the way has always, always declined. They would rather we cut across the board—100,000 jobs in one year, no less—and without any care for those that matter most.

We have taken the right steps to invest in the economy, control our spending, come into balance, ensuring that we have a sustained future for all Ontarians going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Well, the finance minister is trying to hold his cards close to his chest, but sadly he does not have a very good poker face. Yesterday he looked visibly upset. He got nothing he asked for. He didn’t get the capital gains tax on housing purchases. He didn’t get the health transfer he hoped for. We can only imagine that the release of the federal budget left his entire office scrambling.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us when he’s releasing his Ontario budget, or is he now waiting for the rewrite?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has aligned with the Ontario government in regard to skills and training, in regard to investing in child care, in ensuring that we work through the labour market agreements that enable some of our most precarious workers to now have some support, which they didn’t have under the Harris government and under the Harper government in the past. As we consolidate these initiatives, we’re going to be able to support more skills and training. These are important initiatives.

When it comes to infrastructure spending—the federal government has again reaffirmed their desire to do so, without incrementality to the province. That, too, is critically important, Mr. Speaker. While the member opposite sits on his hands and makes up numbers, we here are dealing with what’s real, and that is the people of Ontario and their needs and ensuring that we deliver for them.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: When the finance minister planned for the upcoming budget, he certainly hadn’t planned for a multi-billion dollar hydro scheme. At that time, this government didn’t even think that Ontario’s hydro crisis was a problem, so that’s billions upon billions in new spending. Now his government has failed to successfully lobby in Ottawa. They’re missing out on billions in opportunities for Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance now scrambling to put together their budget, and when will Ontarians see this new budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite has recognized that we are reducing rates 25% across the board. Because of the measures that we have taken to afford to do those measures, Mr. Speaker, and because we’ve taken the steps necessary to afford them and still come to balance, we’re providing for the people of Ontario to help in their everyday lives.

As we proceed throughout that process, regardless of what the federal government has done, we’ve taken into consideration all of those factors. I want to reaffirm that we are balancing the books, and we’ve taken the steps to do so without putting in harm’s way health care or education or social programs or child care or affordable housing. And jobs, Mr. Speaker: 700,000 net new jobs have come to this province since we’ve taken office, through that recession, and we’re succeeding and surpassing.

Hydro rates

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier has promised to reduce the burden of soaring hydro bills at Ontario hospitals by 2%. Let me be clear: That’s not good enough. Health Sciences North in Sudbury, where I live, invested heavily in energy conservation, and saw their hydro bill go up by 26%. The Peterborough regional hospital cut their hydro consumption by 25%, and saw their bill go up by 8%.

Does the Acting Premier think that our hospital in Sudbury would have been better off with just a 24% increase, or does she think that the people in Peterborough would be comforted by a 6% increase rather than an 8% increase?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m actually elated that the member opposite has referenced Health Sciences North.

Mr. Paul Miller: This is you excited?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, the member opposite wants to see me even more excited. I think if they just wait a minute, they’re going to see that—because Health Sciences North has spent the last two and a half years taking advantage of a number of government of Ontario programs that specifically help them with their energy costs. They’ve received a quarter of a million dollars in incentives to help with efficiency updates. The result of those upgrades that they’ve made—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The result of those upgrades that they’ve made is that they now save more than $500,000 per year on their energy costs. So I am getting excited and I am elated with this, because when you combine that with the increase in the funding we’ve provided—I’m happy to talk about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton saw a 105% increase in their hydro bill. Under the Liberal plan, they will get a 2% decrease.

Is the minister okay with a 103% increase in a hydro bill?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we need to remind Ontarians that the electricity costs of hospitals, on average, are approximately 1%. We increased the entire operating budget of Health Sciences North last year by 3.2%, or almost $9 million. We increased the operating budget, the entire budget, not the 1% that the member opposite is talking about, which is electricity. The entire budget of St. Joe’s in Hamilton increased by 3.8%, over $15 million.

In Peterborough, again, as what happened in Sault Ste. Marie, the CEO of the hospital had to come out and had to actually refute the claims made by the NDP, saying that hydro costs represent less than 1% of their budget and that Peterborough hospital has dramatically decreased energy consumption through various energy-saving programs and measures across the hospital. They’ve reduced their consumption by 25%, and they have indicated that they are working well and working closely with the government on further measures.

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

M me France Gélinas: What about the hospital in Niagara? A 96% increase. The hospital in Windsor: a 49% increase. Toronto East General: a 67% increase on their hydro bill.

How can the minister tout the virtue of his government’s $40-billion borrowing scheme that does not address the very real concerns that have been expressed to him repeatedly and publicly by hospitals?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: With the Niagara Health System, we increased their budget—the entire budget, not the 1% of the budget that is applied to electricity—the entire $381-million operating budget of the Niagara Health System. We increased that budget by a further 2.5%, or $9.4 million. Again, the hospital in Niagara, as a result of the misinformation that the NDP has been spreading—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In response to the confusion being spread by the NDP, the executive vice-president of finance and operations of Niagara Falls says that, “Our teams have been able to absorb any increase in costs by continuously looking for efficiencies in our operation....” Even the member of Niagara agreed that the increases—much of that was the result of the doubling in size of the new St. Catharines hospital.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. Right here, right now in Ontario, private clinics are charging people thousands of dollars to jump the queue. They are forcing our families and our seniors to wait longer for their care. For-profit companies are charging up to $100 just to see a doctor. They’re charging money to get people a diagnosis. They are charging money for a physician to sign a prescription.

Why does the Acting Premier think that it is okay to make people pay up or wait longer for the health care that they need?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think it’s important to reassure Ontarians and indeed this Legislature that what the member opposite is talking about, I believe what she’s talking about, are digital or Internet interactions that are taking place.

No one in this province is allowed to, permitted to, under the law, actually provide financial or receive incentives to receive OHIP publicly insured health care services and programs, so that simply isn’t the case—individuals in this province have that legal right, because of medicare, because of our universal health care system and because of the legislation that we put in place in 2004 which makes it illegal for those kinds of activities to take place. If it takes place in a digital interaction online—except with certain pilot programs we have—it is not currently an OHIP-funded procedure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I think we can all agree that you should never need a credit card to see a doctor here in Ontario.

Right here, right now, under this Liberal government, private clinics are charging thousands of dollars to jump the queue. Companies like Maple and Akira are charging up to $100 to see a physician.

How can this minister allow private clinics to charge money for basic health care services and force everybody else to wait longer for the care that they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we have to be so careful here.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo, second time.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be in a position where I have to withdraw or apologize again. But the kind of confusion that this member is sowing across this province right now—it simply is not the case that individuals in Ontario have to pay to receive OHIP-insured health services. They do not pay to jump the queue; it’s illegal.

We’re monitoring this so closely. The examples that the member opposite is providing—erroneous examples, I would argue—that suggest somehow that people are able to buy their way to the front of the line, or somehow that people have to pay for prescriptions from a physician, it’s simply not true.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: I know the minister doesn’t get it, but some things are not for sale. That includes the health care that our families need and count on. Charging people thousands of dollars a year—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order. Minister of Agriculture, come to order.

Carry on, please.

M me France Gélinas: Charging people thousands of dollars a year for health care is wrong. Charging people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, come to order. Minister of Children and Youth Services, second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, second time. You didn’t hear me.

Mr. Paul Miller: Out you go, out you go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know the member wants me to do my job.

Mr. Mike Colle: You’re in the wrong seat too.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order. Start the clock.

Please.

M me France Gélinas: Charging people to see a doctor is wrong. Charging people to get a diagnosis is wrong. Charging people to renew a prescription is wrong.

Why is the minister letting this happen? When is he actually going to stop it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, this kind of accusation is so irresponsible, and even dangerous—these wild and vague accusations. I would like to challenge the member opposite: If she has specific examples which run contrary to the law in this province and the law in this country, I want her to bring them to me directly. I invite her to share them here and now, with names, with specifics, in this Legislature, in the presence of the media, because you don’t have those examples. You don’t have those—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Long-term care

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The demand for long-term-care beds is becoming desperate in my riding. In fact, Central East LHIN continues to have the highest ratio of need-to-available beds in the entire province. There is now a wait-list of over 1,700 people in need of long-term-care beds in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. That’s double what it was a couple of years ago. And in the Peterborough area, their number is now almost 2,900. The wait-lists are so bad that a large group of concerned Ontarians drove down to Queen’s Park this past winter to protest the government’s inaction.

Speaker, when will the minister finally act to address the crisis in long-term care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are acting. We recognize that there are parts of the province where we need to do more. We need to ensure that the capacity that exists reflects the needs of that local population. That’s part of the reason why we’re engaged right now in capacity planning across this province, through the LHINs, to look at a number of issues, including the capacity in long-term care.

But since the member referenced Central East, again, we’ve built more than 10,000 long-term-care beds since coming into office in 2003, including many in Central East: 75 beds at Craiglee Nursing Home, 150 new beds at Yee Hong Centre, 100 new beds at Scarborough Finch, 128 at Hellenic Home for seniors and, also in Central East, 160 further beds in Mon Sheong Foundation.

We know that there’s more work to be done. We’re redeveloping 30,000 beds. We’re already in the process or have completed 13,000 of those 30,000.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: The fact is that the 10,000-beds number that the minister often likes to take credit for was actually the capacity started under the previous PC government. So here we are, 13 years later—13 years of Liberal government—and there’s no new capacity plan.

We’ve been calling on the government for new long-term-care beds for years, but the minister is just sitting on his hands. What’s the point of having a long-term-care system that Ontarians can’t even get into? They’re dying on the wait-lists.

My question again is to the minister: When is he finally going to respond to the suffering families and address the out-of-control crisis in the long-term-care beds in our province?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that what we’re confronting here in Ontario is the same as what is being confronted across this country, across North America and, indeed, in the world: an aging population that, in many respects, is aging more healthily but who are also having changing needs that we need to make sure we are responding to.

That includes, for example, the investments that we’re making in support for individuals living with dementia. That also includes, of course, recognizing that those in long-term-care homes tend to be older now, and they tend to have more complex conditions, so we’re investing about $50 million annually in behavioural supports for individuals in long-term care.

We’re dramatically increasing our investments in home and community care, in the order of about 5% per year.

But we’re focusing not only on new beds that we’ve created in long-term care, and the redevelopment, but investments in the important resources that they need in those homes.

Hydro rates

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have a question, and it’s for the Deputy Premier. Good morning.

I have a constituent. She’s 67. Her husband is a stroke victim. She’s trying to save money. She got rid of her electric clothes dryer, switched to natural gas, and it only saved her 10 bucks a month. Her most recent hydro bill was for $130 of usage, but more than $100 in delivery charges.

What does the Deputy Premier say to folks struggling to keep up with her government’s failed energy policies?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Good morning to you too, sir. This example, and many others that we have heard in this House for weeks now, illustrate exactly why we are making the changes we are making. It’s part of—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and it reflects our values. People should not be struggling to pay their electricity bills when they have so many other demands. That is why we are bringing prices down by 25% on average.

There is additional support for people who live in rural Ontario and remote communities. There is additional support available for people who are in low-income households. We’ve got additional supports available for people with medical needs that require additional electricity usage.

It is exactly that kind of story that has compelled us to make this significant reduction in electricity prices.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My constituent takes a monthly prescription pill. It costs her more than $100. It’s not covered by OHIP. There are times, she tells me, when she has to make a decision: “Do I buy more medication or do I pay my hydro bill?”

She also tells me that there are a lot of seniors in her neighbourhood. When she goes out in the evening and at night, those homes are darker these days, these nights, these evenings because people can’t afford to turn on their lights.

She’s not the only one struggling these days. When can seniors in Ontario finally get a break from the failed policies of this Liberal government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The answer is, they’ve already seen a reduction that came in in the January bill. There will be additional savings, if and when this legislation gets passed. What I would say to the member opposite, who I know actually cares about this issue and the people in his community, is to support this bill.

Their plan is a plan that would take $4 billion out of the services that people in this province rely on, like health care. The plan to spend $4 billion would not take one penny off one bill. Our plan will do that—25% on average, and more for people facing particularly high electricity costs.

Climate change

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday, Ontario made history by holding its first cap-and-trade auction. Soon, 60% of the world’s economy will be covered by a carbon price, 90% of which will be cap-and-trade systems. By entering into the carbon market, we’re following through on our commitment to responsibly reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost.

Our plan also calls for support for homeowners and businesses to benefit from home energy retrofits, public transit and electric vehicle incentives. These are investments which, sadly, are non-existent in the schemes that we’ve seen from members of the opposition.

Speaker, could the minister please speak to the benefits of Ontario’s cap-and-trade program?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank—because we don’t know the results and we won’t for two weeks, but it was technically a huge success—Ontarians, environmental groups, and the nine largest-emitting industry associations, from cement to auto, who worked with us and have supported that and are participating in this, and companies that are not passing costs on, as the opposition would suggest, but are reducing:

—St. Marys Cement and Pond biofuels, to reduce costs and emissions;

—Goldcorp, on electrification of mining;

—Brookfield and EllisDon, net-zero buildings, massively reducing costs of buildings in Ontario;

—exporters reducing costs for small businesses in systemic programs;

—General Motors, using biofuels in St. Catharines;

—UPS and FedEx, reducing costs of delivery in Ontario with lower technology; and

—Nova corporation, doing massive co-gen in Sarnia.

All across our industries and services, people are using carbon markets and cap-and-trade to reduce costs, renew our industrial infrastructure and make Ontario more competitive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you to the minister for his answer. It’s encouraging to hear that our government is taking an approach that’s economically sound and transparent.

What’s not encouraging, however, are the comments that the PC leader has made on the eve of Ontario’s first cap-and-trade auction. When referring to the Western Climate Initiative, the PC leader told the Toronto Star, “We would want to exit from this framework as quickly as possible.”

Politicizing an auction a day before it goes live is not just careless but can potentially undermine the auction itself. When pressed by the CBC on his climate strategy, the PC leader was quoted as saying, “We’re still going through our policy process on that.”

Mr. Speaker, given that our government does have a process in place, can the minister please explain to the House what it entails?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would agree with the observation by the member that, by suggesting you’re going to tear up the WCI on the eve that the market is calculated, you disrupt the market. That wasn’t an attack on the government; that was an attack on all of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am listening very carefully. The member is dangerously close to making an accusation to a member. I would caution him and ask that he go no further with that.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That challenges the market, which everyone is relying on. It’s not the government of Ontario; it’s Ontarians who are finding the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions—businesses to compete.

Our petrochemical sectors, our trucking sectors, who are out ahead of this, and all who support it: They’re asking me what would happen if the opposition tore this up and put a carbon tax in place that would start fuel prices at 16 cents higher at the pump, and have no money to sustain these programs. That is awful.

Hydro rates

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, to you and through you to the Acting Premier: Sarnia–Lambton constituent Carol Cote and a small group of friends have been gathering for years in a Sarnia church to quilt. The group has a social conscience and soon began creating what they call “comfort quilts” for victims of disease, crime or tragic incidents.

The local church was kind enough to provide space in their gym one day a month for the group to meet. They only asked for whatever donation the members of the group could give. Sadly, because of the unaffordable cost of hydro, the church has informed Carol that they will no longer be able to offer the gym without a rental charge, a charge the group cannot afford.

Acting Premier, your energy crisis has now become a barrier even to charitable work in Ontario. Can you honestly say that you’ve done enough to correct the energy mistakes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I could tell you is that we are the party that has a plan to bring down electricity prices. It is a fair plan. It is about helping everyone; everyone will benefit from this plan. It brings the cost of electricity down by 25%.

Then we’re giving people the comfort of knowing that rates will go up no higher than the rate of inflation for four years. This is a plan that we actually can stand behind.

I’m still waiting to see what the PCs’ plan is, but I don’t think the people in Sarnia–Lambton can wait till your policy convention in November. They want action now, and that’s what we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, to you and through you to the Acting Premier: Unfortunately, your hydro Hail Mary comes too late for Carol and her group.

Over the last five years, Carol and the Sarnia Sisterhood of Quilters have lovingly finished more than 200 quilts for various agencies in the community, hospitals and individuals in need. They’ve never sought compensation or recognition. They only seek to make a positive mark on their community.

Acting Premier, before your next million-dollar ad buy patting yourself and the party on the back, will you stop and think of the welfare of groups like the Sarnia Sisterhood of Quilters, rather than the welfare of the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, we’re hearing stories from real people. I have no reason to question that story. The difference between them and us, though, is that we have a plan and we are delivering on that plan.

The PCs are saying that they are going to rip up contracts. Even they know that that will lead to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —penalties, that that will lead to increased costs. In fact, the PC energy critic said that renegotiating contracts—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —a huge cost to taxpayers, and we’re going to continue to see electricity prices rise.

Speaker, they don’t have a plan. They’re not even able to criticize our plan. But we are moving forward. We are delivering results. We are reducing the price of electricity.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. LCBO employees are professionals who perform an important public service, regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol-related products in the province. They’re doing a very good job because, even on the profit side, they’ve shown growth in 21 straight years. Last year, 2015-16, there was $2 billion in profit—profit that, because it belongs to us, goes to schools, to health care, to home care. But those profits would also be very attractive to the private sector, for good reason.

My question is, will the Premier commit to not sell off the LCBO?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let me be really clear here. Notwithstanding what Smokey Thomas has requested, which is to buy the LCBO and privatize it for their own benefit, it is not for sale, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Acting Premier: LCBO stores are clean, safe, highly regulated places to purchase alcoholic beverages.

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. John Vanthof: They’re a clear gem among this province’s crown assets. Despite the Minister of Finance’s attempt to deflate or—what’s the Premier’s word?—conflate the issue, Hydro One wasn’t for sale either. The Premier said it wasn’t for sale, and then, magically, it was. The question is, is the same thing going to happen to LCBO?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, we still own Hydro One and we’ll always be the largest shareholder, and we’ll reinvest dollar for dollar into our economy to continue to build new assets.

The member opposite has made an important point: The LCBO is a highly attractive organization. Its value is strong, its contribution to the province is strong, and that in itself is why we are not even considering mobilizing anything for the LCBO, except expanding its reach to ensure that it continues to contribute for the benefit of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we’re doing.

When it came to Hydro One and other assets, we made the same investment and realized we could do better—and we are doing better on all cases.

LCBO is not for sale.

International trade

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of International Trade. In trade and in governance as a whole, taking a proactive approach to the issues that matter most to constituents and businesses is of the utmost importance to us. It is a defining characteristic of our government. This approach was exemplified earlier this week when Minister Chan and Minister Duguid travelled to Albany, New York, to join Monique Smith, Ontario’s trade representative in Washington, and her Quebec counterpart to meet with New York state legislators to represent Ontario’s business interests.

In light of the shifting trade climate, I know that the businesses in my community value the proactive efforts made by our government to boldly protect their opportunities for growth. Can the minister share with this Legislature the importance of a strong New York state trade relationship on both sides of the border?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, I want to thank the member from Barrie for asking. As part of our government’s many engagement efforts with the US, Minister Duguid and I travelled to Albany, New York, on Tuesday and engaged in seven meetings with New York state legislators. We advocated on behalf of Ontarians seeking an exemption from proposed buy-American provisions that could potentially affect access to procurement contracts.

During these discussions, we stressed the fact that both Ontario and New York state grow together, as our economies are deeply integrated. In fact, Ontario is the destination for 80% of all goods exported from New York to Canada. Trade matters to Ontario and a strong and balanced relationship with our US partners serves to benefit workers and businesses on both sides of the border.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of International Trade for his efforts and his response.

Minister, New York state’s buy-American policy is part of their budget bill that will be passed at the end of this month. This policy will prevent non-American companies from bidding on New York state government procurement. This kind of protectionist policy is rightfully of concern to Ontario businesses. We understand that your trip surrounded efforts to ask New York state legislators to exempt Canada from this policy. My question to the minister is, how did the meetings go and what happens next?

Hon. Michael Chan: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to begin by thanking my colleague the Minister of International Trade, and the minister of economic development for Quebec, Dominique Anglade, for travelling with us and working with us in our efforts in Albany this week.

As New York state is our number one international customer and we are their number one international customer, I want to say that the minister and I are very proud to stand up for our business community here in Ontario and strongly make the case that Canadian businesses need to be exempt from the “buy-American” policy or it could very well cost New York state jobs as well. It’s very important they get that message.

I’m pleased to report to all members of the Legislature that our message was very well received. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the knowledge of that by the folks that we met with. We’ll continue to pursue this—

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

Court facility

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General is well aware that Halton region is in urgent need of a new courthouse. The existing courthouse in Milton is aging, overcrowded and inadequate to deal with the needs of a rapidly growing Halton region.

Working with local stakeholders, we have been advocating for a new courthouse for more than two years now. As one of the Halton-area MPPs, I have raised this issue in the Legislature many times.

My question is very simple. Why is it taking the Attorney General so long to announce approval of the new Halton courthouse we so desperately need?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member opposite for a very important question. Indeed, a new courthouse in Halton is a top priority for my ministry.

I want to give a big thank you to the members from Oakville, Burlington and Halton for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of the community, working along with the member from Halton Hills in making sure that we have a new courthouse in Halton.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with the local community as well and with the local government to understand the need of Halton, along with the members from Oakville, Burlington and Halton and the member from Halton Hills, to make sure that we have all the processes in place.

In the supplementary I will speak to exactly what steps we have taken so that we have a new courthouse in Halton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, we have been assured repeatedly by both this Attorney General and his predecessor that a new Halton courthouse is his ministry’s top priority. However, despite these assurances, we’re still waiting. And while we’re waiting, access to justice in Halton region is compromised.

According to the Halton county law society, litigants are often required to travel to Brampton or Guelph because the current courthouse simply can’t handle the volume of cases. In fact, there have been examples where criminal cases have been thrown out because it was taking too long to get them to trial. Surely the Attorney General would agree this is unacceptable.

Will he commit to this House that a new Halton courthouse will be approved and announced this year?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I said earlier, a new courthouse for Halton region is on the top of the ministry’s priority project list. Again, I want to acknowledge all the work that the members from Oakville, Burlington and Halton have done on this very important issue. As a result of that work, we have appointed a design expert who has been hired to develop the design requirements for a new courthouse and has met with Infrastructure Ontario as part of the design process.

There also have been meetings between the design expert, the users of the court and the local community to better understand their needs. Those consultations, which began in August, have put the ministry in a good position to move forward with the project implementation of the Halton region consolidated courthouse.

We recognize, Speaker, that there is a clear need to address facility challenges in Halton region, and I assure the member opposite, as I’ve assured the members from Oakville, Halton and Burlington, that this is our top priority and we will get it done.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. More than a year ago, London Health Sciences Centre, CMHA Middlesex and Middlesex-London EMS came up with an innovative project to divert 3,000 mental health patients each year from the emergency room to the CMHA crisis centre.

The project has stalled because provincial legislation only allows ambulance transfer of patients directly to a public hospital and not to a community-based crisis centre. LHSC, CMHA and EMS have been asking for months for the Minister of Health to approve the project as a pilot, to allow it to go ahead.

The minister told the media yesterday that the project is already under way, but in fact it is waiting on his desk for sign-off.

Will the minister commit to signing off today, so that the project can proceed immediately?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I did have the opportunity to speak to this; I believe it was yesterday. The work that CMHA, the Canadian Mental Health Association, is doing in London with the brand new crisis centre that we funded to the tune of $1.2 million is remarkably important, because it provides crisis intervention for adults and youth aged 16 and up, in both London and Middlesex county.

They have put forward a proposal that we’re looking at, which would permit emergency medical services to—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Transport.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —thank you—transport patients in crisis directly to that crisis centre. The member herself has acknowledged that it is currently illegal to do that. It would require a legislative change to the Ambulance Act. It obviously would have implications province-wide, but it is something that we’re looking at.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The mental health crisis in my community keeps getting worse. On Monday this week, the LHSC psychiatric ER was at 152% capacity, with 26 mental health patients waiting for beds.

This ER diversion project could save about $2.5 million annually by reducing the need for ambulances to transfer patients to the ER first and then wait, sometimes for hours, before they can transfer patients to the crisis centre.

After he signs off on the pilot—hopefully, today—will the minister commit to reinvesting the $2.5 million in savings back into the community, so that the crisis centre has enough nurses to care for the expected 3,000 patients, and LHSC can start putting patients in beds instead of hallway stretchers?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish it was that easy. First of all, if I was to approve the pilot that the member opposite is advocating for—and I have to say that the member from London—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: North Centre.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —North Centre has been a strong advocate for this, and we have had conversations about it.

But I can no more sign off on a pilot—which is nowhere near my desk by the way. I can’t sign off on that, because it would be breaking the law.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m asking for quiet.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: But this is a very important project, and it points to the success of—

Interjection.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important project, and it points to the success of the crisis centre that we, this government, funded—those beds that are available, the supports that are available in the community.

I’m taking this very, very seriously. There’s a lot of support for this, including from the member to the left of me. The ministry is looking at this, but it does have bigger implications in terms of, it is currently illegal, and it would require legislative changes to the Ambulance Act—

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

New question.

Water quality

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. The number of First Nations communities in Ontario without access to safe drinking water is unacceptable. As the Premier stated yesterday during question period, this matter is of high priority to our government.

I know that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as well as the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change are both working hard to address this issue.

Can the minister please elaborate on what our government is doing to ensure that our First Nations communities have access to safe and clean drinking water?

Hon. David Zimmer: We are committed to a trilateral process with Canada on a five-year plan to provide First Nation reserves with access to safe drinking water and to develop a longer-term strategy to ensure that solutions are implemented and long-lasting.

Ontario is pleased with Ottawa’s $2-billion investment in water treatment plants on reserves across Canada. Since 2015, Ontario has spent or committed a total of $23.74 million in provincial money to on-reserve drinking water projects in Ontario, but more work needs to be done. This trilateral process with Canada and First Nations will continue to identify options, to expedite and ensure that safe drinking water is a priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: It’s assuring to hear that our government is working hard and placing a high priority on this matter. All Ontarians must have access to safe water, especially our partners in indigenous communities. Although there is much work left to do, I am encouraged to know that this government is taking the necessary steps to solve this issue.

I know that this is also an important matter for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, and they are also involved in the trilateral process.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on the specifics of what the ministry of climate change is doing, what they’ve done, and what they are currently doing?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I refer this supplementary to the very effective Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just his title, please.

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The role of our ministry in working with Minister Zimmer’s ministry, the federal government and First Nations is important. What we’re involved in is getting the planning and the assessments ready to support the capital infrastructure being undertaken by the federal government—reaffirmed in its budget.

We are carrying out water sampling in eight communities; we are doing the profiling of water microbiology and chemistry in 14 more within the next two months. We are doing the on-site assessments and visits to provide recommendations for seven communities so they can establish their water treatment facilities. We are providing expertise and support to 10 councils and First Nations organizations to help them accelerate the movement of water projects forward. And we are providing comprehensive training across Ontario’s First Nations for facility operators to operate the plants once they are repaired and new ones are established.

This is a powerful and transformative partnership with First Nations and the federal government, finally getting clean water to communities that have been waiting too long for it.

Public transit

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Mayor John Tory wrote what I’ve been saying for a long time. He said, “I’ve talked to hundreds of people about the Scarborough subway extension but I’ve also listened to those people and I’ve heard the message loud and clear from Scarborough residents—Scarborough needs better transit....” Mr. Speaker, they need better transit now.

When will this government get a shovel in the ground and start building the Scarborough subway?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member opposite for his question. I believe that everybody in this chamber knows that our Premier and our government—including our members from Scarborough, of which we have almost every riding covered in this caucus—were first at the table with respect to providing $1.48 billion to help support a transit expansion for the subway expansion in Scarborough.

We continue to work very closely with the city of Toronto, with Mayor Tory and with our federal partners as well to make sure that we continue to expand transit, that we build the subway extension in Scarborough, and that we continue to build transit in every corner of Toronto, right across the GTHA and, frankly, in communities like Waterloo, Ottawa and so many others.

I look forward to the follow-up question from the member opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Mayor Tory talked about his time at the Scarborough Town Centre RT station, and I was with him that time. Said he: “I talked to people as they made the mad morning rush to transfer from a bus to the RT just so they could then transfer again to the subway at Kennedy Station. The vast majority of those riders were ready for some transit relief now.”

Mr. Speaker, Scarborough is ready for transit relief now. When will the construction begin?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: You know, Speaker, I try to be nice in this House from time to time when members are asking questions that actually make a lot of sense. I don’t really understand that member’s perspective. He is a former city of Toronto councillor. He would of course know that the city of Toronto is leading on this particular project. He understands it’s a project the city of Toronto is not only leading on—the TTC would build. I think if anybody reasonably checks the historical record, they would understand that that particular member, throughout his long political career, has had a multitude of positions on this particular item.

There’s only one party here, on this side of the House, that has been consistent on this. We are going to build the Scarborough subway extension because of members on our side of the House who represent Scarborough, and do it proudly, and because our Premier is the only political leader in Ontario committed to building our province up.

Interjections.

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

New question?

Hydro rates

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. We know that our public libraries provide extraordinary value to their communities. Whether it’s employment skills upgrading or the integration of new Ontarians, or whether it’s providing free space for seniors’ groups or the early development of literacy skills, our public libraries create community across this province.

However, in Waterloo, our public libraries’ hydro bills have been rising, with no end in sight. In fact, I’ve heard first-hand over the last three years that the increases in their hydro bills have been staggering. In 2014-15, Waterloo Public Library’s electricity costs rose by 18%; the following year by 26%. Public libraries’ operating budgets are being squeezed and public service is being sacrificed.

My question is simple. To the Acting Premier: Can you tell Ontarians why she’s allowed energy costs to impact public libraries in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, we hear a story about the impact of high electricity rates. We understand those stories; we hear them ourselves in our own communities. That is why we are taking action to significantly reduce the electricity bills for organizations, for individuals and for businesses. Libraries would be included in that.

My question back to the member is—you don’t have a plan that will take a penny off a bill. Your plan is to actually spend $4 billion more for something that will not take one penny off one bill, including the bill of that library.

We have a plan. We’re moving forward. We would welcome the support of the members opposite for our plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: With all due respect, we haven’t seen your plan. You have not tabled this legislation in this House. If anybody has a credibility problem, it’s that side of the House on this file.

Back to the Acting Premier: Our public library budgets are being compromised because of your out-of-control hydro rates. Your government’s public library operating grants fund less than 5% of library operating budgets.

In Toronto, library utility bills increased by almost $700,000 between 2014 and 2015, and they’re projecting a significant increase this year. Rising electricity bills and chronic underfunding have created a crisis for libraries. Out of desperation, Toronto public libraries are now opening without staff. Imagine: libraries without librarians.

Acting Premier, why is your government forcing libraries to choose between paying their bills or staffing their libraries?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’m always happy to stand in this House and talk proudly about our support for public libraries. I know the member opposite will join me in not only celebrating that support but supporting it when it comes forward as we table our budget and in our ongoing conversations. I know that I can count on your support for our public libraries.

Here is just a sample of what we’ve done since 2003—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: We already heard that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order, please. The member from Hamilton Mountain, come to order, please.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: In the spirit of quiet conversations in libraries, perhaps we can continue in that vein to talk precisely about what we’ve done for public libraries. I’m happy to start—that since 2003, over half a billion dollars this government has invested in our public and our First Nations libraries, $33.5 million last year alone. That support is going to continue, and we’re proud of it.

Farm safety

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ontario’s agri-food sector supports close to 800,000 jobs and contributes more than $36.4 billion towards the province’s GDP. The agri-food sector is one of the biggest employers in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and also includes the Ontario Food Terminal, all of which is powered by Ontario’s farmers.

This past week, Canadian Agricultural Safety Week took place, with the goal of raising awareness of farm safety across Canada. Our government commends their efforts here in Ontario and across the country.

Can the minister please provide this House with more information on how Canadian Agricultural Safety Week is working to improve safety on farms across Canada each year?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for his question this morning. I know that during his work as MPP for that riding, he goes door to door to promote backyard gardens in his riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Canadian Agricultural Safety Week happens every year with the goal of raising awareness of farm safety in Canada. Our government commends their efforts here in Ontario and across the country. I’m proud to stand with the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to recognize the importance of farm safety. Their three-year farm safety campaign, Be an AgSafe Family, has been crucial, providing resources and raising the profile of farm safety across Canada.

Last year, the campaign’s focus for Canadian Agricultural Safety Week was on children. This year the focus is on adult farm safety. In 2018, the focus will be on promoting farm safety for seniors.

I want to conclude: I even made a wonderful short video highlighting the importance of agricultural safety week. I posted my video—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You will conclude.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I apologize for not doing this earlier, but I did want to welcome to Queen’s Park today OPSEU member Brian Hickman, who is a liquor store employee in Eganville, in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Thank you for joining us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nickel Belt on a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: Through my question, the Minister of Health had asked for information on the two-tier system. He’s asked that I send it over—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order. You can do that on your own.

Point of order.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: If I may, I just want to very quickly acknowledge that ministry officials from the Ministry of Education who have worked on Bill 92 are here in the gallery and watching. I just want to thank them for their work.

Deferred Votes

School Boards Collective Bargaining Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les conseils scolaires

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act to amend the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014 and make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2014 sur la négociation collective dans les conseils scolaires et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1148 to 1153.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On March 22, 2017, Ms. Hunter moved third reading of Bill 92,

An Act to amend the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014 and make related amendments to other statutes. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fedeli, Victor

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLeod, Lisa

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

McNaughton, Monte

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Mantha, Michael

Miller, Paul

Sattler, Peggy

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 75; the nays are 14.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Concurrence in supply

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on government orders number 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

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

The division bells rang from 1156 to 1157.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On March 22, 2017, Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Finance.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Bisson, Gilles

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Sattler, Peggy

Smith, Todd

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

We have a deferred vote on government order number 5. On March 22—

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to finish reading it; sorry, guys—Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Transportation, including supplementaries. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized—

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

We have a deferred vote on government order number 7. On March 22, 2017, Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, including supplementaries. Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

We have a deferred vote on government order number 8. On March 22, Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy, including supplementaries. Do we have same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

We have a deferred vote on government order 9. Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Deferred vote on government order 10. Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education, including supplementaries. Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

We have a deferred vote on government order number 11. On March 22, 2017, Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Deferred vote on government order 12. On March 22, 2017, Ms. Sandals moved concurrence in supply for the Office of Francophone Affairs. Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Motions agreed to.

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Deferred vote on the motion that the question be now put on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the motion for closure on the motion for second reading of Bill 68. Same vote? I heard a no.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1204.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On November 29, 2016, Mr. Mauro moved second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities. Mr. Coteau has moved that the question be now put. All those in favour of Mr. Coteau’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those against, please rise.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Bisson, Gilles

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Sattler, Peggy

Smith, Todd

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 53; the nays are 38.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Mauro has moved second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1208.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 67; the nays are 24.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Minister?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to rise to recognize all the people who here today in the galleries for my statement on George Leslie Mackay, recognizing his 173rd birthday. In the gallery are Director General Catherine Hsu and Deputy Director General Nicolas Hong from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, as well as the director of the cultural centre, Lee Shu-ling. There are also representatives from the Canadian Mackay Committee and a number of important local Taiwanese organizations.

I want to thank everyone for being here today to celebrate the birthday of George Leslie Mackay.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome all our guests. Thank you for being here.

Further introductions?

Hon. Chris Ballard: I just want to introduce Wasim Jarrah, a valuable member of the Newmarket community and a constituent of mine.

Members’ Statements

George Leslie Mackay

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize an Oxford hero, George Leslie Mackay. This week would have marked Dr. Mackay’s 173rd birthday. All these years later, he’s still remembered not just here in Ontario but throughout Taiwan as a hero.

As a young man, George Leslie Mackay travelled to Taiwan, which was then known as Formosa, as a missionary. He fell in love with this island. He learned the language, married a woman from Formosa named Minnie and set about helping people in any way he could, including by practising dentistry, pulling over 10,000 teeth.

He said, “I was pulled by an invisible string to an unknown place. But when that beautiful view of the green mountains on the island came to me, all was cleared that this was where my life would like to be.”

George Leslie Mackay returned to Oxford several times over the years. During his time at home, he raised money to build a hospital and schools in Taiwan, including the first school for girls and a university. He is also credited with helping to create the first newspaper. During his time back in Canada, Dr. Ma