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

September 19, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Sept-19 (PDF)

L024 - Wed 19 Sep 2018 / Mer 19 sep 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 19 September 2018 Mercredi 19 septembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Report, Integrity Commissioner

Decorum in chamber

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

Taxation

Natural gas

Taxation

Government accountability

Municipal government

Taxation

Child care

Natural gas

Child poverty

Energy rates

Youth employment

Rural Ontario

International trade

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitor

Correction of record

Adjournment debate

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Niagara firefighters

Ontario economy

Elizabeth Kishkon

Disaster relief

Opioid abuse

Battle of Britain

Health care

Highway improvement

Engineering graduates

Driver examination centre

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Rea and Walter Act (Truss and Lightweight Construction Identification), 2018 / Loi Rea et Walter de 2018 sur l’identification des composants structuraux à ossature légère

Petitions

Municipal elections

Social assistance

Gasoline prices

Municipal elections

Pharmacare

Curriculum

Services for persons with disabilities

Injured workers

Soins de longue durée

Employment standards

Curriculum

Orders of the Day

Standing orders

Adjournment Debate

School facilities / Installations scolaires

Municipal government

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 31,

An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the Education Act and to revoke two regulations, when Bill 31 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 6. I look to the minister, the government House leader, to lead off the debate.

Hon. Todd Smith: I won’t be spending a lot of time on this motion that we put forward here today. We, as the government, believe it’s very, very important to provide that certainty, not just to the clerk of Toronto city hall, who will be administering the upcoming municipal election on October 22, so that the clerk’s office can be prepared and begin the process of printing ballots for the upcoming Toronto election, but we can also provide the certainty necessary for those candidates who are interested in taking

part in the election that will be occurring on that day, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve spent a lot of time in this Legislature—as a matter of fact, during the special sitting of the government over the summer months, we spent countless hours in this chamber—debating the previous incarnation of a bill like this, Bill 5. That bill passed as the summer session ended; then we rose for our summer break.

Consequently, we find ourselves back here in the Legislature now with another unprecedented sitting, including a midnight sitting earlier this week, where members of the Legislature participated in a very informative debate. I thought it was one of the best debates that we’ve had in this Legislature in my time here.

We had a very, very solid discussion from members of the government backing up why our government feels so strongly about reducing the size of Toronto city council—smaller, better government in Toronto that will be able to act more quickly and work with cousins in the provincial Legislature here, and also our friends on Parliament Hill in the federal government, to ensure that we’re doing the things that need to get done to make the largest economic hub not just in Ontario but in the country work better: building transit, building affordable housing, ensuring that goods can get across the city of Toronto.

I know that people in York region—Richmond Hill, Markham and up into northern York region—particularly on the east side, but throughout the GTA, are pulling their hair out every day in the gridlock that exists on the roads in and around the city of Toronto. With a more nimble council, I believe that we’ll be able to get that transit built.

I see the Minister of Transportation here. He has big plans, along with the Premier of Ontario, to fix the transit situation, to make it work better for the residents of this city, but also to make sure, as I mentioned earlier, that we can get goods through the GTA. It’s very, very important, because we’re losing so much economic activity in gridlock. The Toronto Region Board of Trade, every year, puts out a report on how much the economy is losing because of the gridlock in the GTA.

As a matter of fact, last night I had some friends here in the Legislature. My brother-in-law, from Nashville, Tennessee, was here last night with his leadership team. A number of Americans were here taking a tour after hours of the Legislature, looking at our chamber. We were talking about different things that are happening in the United States, and we got talking about different things that are happening here.

The one thing that they said to me—and they’ve only been in Toronto for a couple of days—is: “We can’t believe the traffic in this city.” And these are people that travel—not just from Nashville, but they spend time in all of the American cities and cities around the world. It’s a leadership team that works for a big call centre company that has locations all around the world, and they said that the one thing that they noticed in Toronto was the fact that it takes forever to get anywhere. That’s an impression that—these are outside residents of our country. They actually live in the United States of America.

Their first impression was: “How can you ever get anything done in this city, because nobody can get anywhere?”

One of the big reasons why we’re motivated to get this bill passed as quickly as we can is to end the gridlock at the Toronto city hall, but also to end the gridlock around the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, where we’re losing so much money each year in economic activity. When you have those business people coming into the city and they’re seeing that gridlock, it does alarm them, because they do have to get their goods to their destination. I know it’s costing a lot of these companies a lot of money.

As I say, I don’t intend to spend a lot of time on this bill here today. Our motivation today is to get this time allocation bill passed so that, if necessary, we will have the opportunity to pass Bill 31 later today. Of course, we’re all awaiting a judgment that’s coming later this morning. We’ll be keeping a close eye on that, to see if it’s necessary for us to even call Bill 31 to second and third reading votes.

As the government of Ontario, we thought it was very important to make sure that we get this bill passed, to provide that certainty, again, to the clerk of Toronto city hall and to the candidates who want to participate in the upcoming municipal election on October 22.

I know we’re going to have a couple of hours’ debate on the time allocation motion here this morning. Some members from the official opposition will no doubt be participating. We’ll hear all kinds of great quotes about what members of the government had to say when they were the official opposition on time allocation. But because of the incredible time frame that we find ourselves in with the upcoming election on October 22, and the timelines that we’re working with, we feel it’s imperative that we get this bill passed as quickly as we possibly can.

I thank you for the time this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got to say, I’m really not happy to be part of this debate. I don’t think anybody—on our side of the House, anyway—is particularly pleased with what’s going on.

Let’s try to put this in some context, here. The government says that we have a crisis and we need to deal with it, so they brought the House back. We started sitting at midnight; we did an all-nighter; we sat on the weekend; they brought in the “notwithstanding” clause. They created the crisis. So the government’s trying to find a solution to a crisis that they created.

I just found that explanation from the government House leader somewhat interesting, because you created the crisis. It’s like you start the fire, and you say, “Okay, go get me the fire department.” That’s essentially what you guys have done. So don’t try to make yourselves out to be these great defenders of democracy who are trying to make sure the people of Toronto are able to get their voting done in an orderly way, in a way that’s constitutional, within a certain time frame, because you’re the guys who created this.

The city of Toronto spent three years—Mr. Ford was on that council as well, the now Premier, then Alderman Ford—in order to figure out what the size of that council should be. They came back and they said, “Not 45; rather, 47,” for the reasons that they came to. Now, all of a sudden, because the current Premier has a grudge match with the city and with council and God knows what else—maybe he has discussions with developers that may prove to be interesting after this has all passed; I don’t know. But they’re the ones who actually created it—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Eglinton–Lawrence on a point of order.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Point of order: It’s very early in the debate this morning and already the opposition, in their first speech in the House, is referring to motive again. It’s not allowed under standing order 23(i).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I will advise the House, regardless of what may have gone on in the past, to be very careful in imputing motive and using language that could be construed as definite imputing of motive. So be very careful. There’s a very fine line there. I would ask that all members on all sides be very cautious. Thank you.

Please continue.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that, but I wasn’t imputing motive; I was saying, “Here are some of the possibilities.” That’s all I’m saying here. Government gets up quite often, including the Premier of the province, to talk about how they feel about us, how they feel about our leader, how they feel about some of our policies, and, quite frankly, what some of our motives are. It’s always done by the government across the way. I just say that those who dish it out should be able to take it. It should be as simple as that.

I just want to say, this is a crisis created by the government. This is not a crisis that was created by anybody else other than the Ford government. So for you to come to this House and try to tell the public, “We have your interests in hand so we need to get this done really quickly,” I think is passing strange.

The second thing is, you know, Legislatures aren’t just about MPPs; it’s about the people. We make laws for the people of Ontario, and our rules, as with every Legislature in this land and any other parliamentary system in the world, have a committee process that allows the public to come before it in order to pronounce themselves how much they like a piece of legislation or how much they don’t like it, how to improve it or how to get rid of it. That’s the right of the public. You know, Mr.

Speaker, we’ve said this before: Each and every bill that this government has passed since they’ve come into office has not once gone to committee—not one. Not one bill that you’ve passed as a government bill has gone into committee. You’ve gone from second reading to time allocation to third reading, and there has been no time for committee in between. That’s rather unfortunate, because it means to say the government is not giving the public its due, its ability to have its say.

When a government starts hiding behind the institution that it runs in this way, using time allocation to block the public out, I think that is problematic.

I was a member of a government that did things that people liked and didn’t like. We referred them to committee and the people would come before us and they would say what they liked and didn’t like, and you had to accept that. Why? Because this is what Parliament is all about. Parliament isn’t a closed club for elected officials only, just for the politicians. A Parliament is about us enacting laws, government and opposition proposing laws, and eventually they get to committee so the public has an opportunity. So this bill, no matter what the timeline is, should go to committee in order to give the public their say.

For that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to move the following amendment, and it reads:

Delete everything after “ordered” in the first paragraph and replace it with:

“... to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

“That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Thursday, September 27, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

“That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 31:

“—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

“—That the deadline for requests to appear be 6 p.m., Monday, September 24, 2018, and;

“—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first come, first served basis; and

“—That each witness will receive up to nine minutes for their presentation, followed by six minutes for questions from committee members, divided equally amongst the recognized parties;

“That the deadline for written submissions be 8 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2018; and

“That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee be 9 a.m. on Monday, October 1, 2018; and

“That the committee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

“That on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

“That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, October 4, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

“That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

“That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to the government, 20 minutes to the official opposition, seven minutes to the independent Liberal Party members and three minutes to the independent Green Party member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

“That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

“That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.”

I will give this to Will, who will bring it over to the Speaker and the Clerks.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Bisson, the member from Timmins, has actually presented an amendment to government motion number 6. It reads as follows:

“Delete everything”—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Dispense.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I must continue, cold and all.

“Delete everything after ‘ordered’ in the first paragraph and replace it with:

“‘... to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

“‘That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Thursday, September 27, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

“‘That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 5:

“‘—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

“‘—That the deadline for requests to appear be 6 p.m. on Monday, September 24, 2018; and

“‘—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first come, first served basis; and

“‘—That each witness will receive up to nine minutes for their presentation, followed by six minutes for questions from committee members divided equally amongst the recognized parties;

“‘That the deadline for written submissions be 8 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2018; and

“‘That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 9 a.m. on Monday, October 1, 2018; and

“‘That the committee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

“‘That on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all the remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

“‘That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, October 4, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

“‘That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

“‘That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to the government, 20 minutes to the official opposition, seven minutes to the independent Liberal Party members and three minutes to the independent Green Party member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

“‘That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

“‘That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.’”

I now return to the member from Timmins to continue debate.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The reason for this is really simple. As I was saying before, every piece of government legislation that the government has introduced and had completed second reading debate—they have moved each of those bills directly from second reading over to third reading without any time for public hearings, which is, quite frankly, counter to what this place is all about. You need to allow the public to have their say. That’s why New Democrats are putting this forward.

The government is going to argue, “Oh, my God, but it’ll delay things and it’ll make the crisis worse.” As I said earlier, who created this crisis? Was it the city of Toronto? No, they already had a plan about how to deal with their election. They had worked for three years in order to determine what the size of council should be. Instead, the Premier of the province has a grudge match with the council for whatever reason—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would caution the member again to be careful of imputing motive. The wording that you are using could be interpreted as imputing motive, so I would ask that you be very careful with that. That goes for both sides, as I’ve mentioned earlier.

Please continue.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d appreciate if it did go for both sides, because I hear the Premier all the time doing this type of thing when it comes to language in the House. I’m looking at him as the leader of the government and the leader of this House. I’m just following what the Premier does.

I don’t mean that to be combative, but everybody has a motive for what they do. When I stand here and move this motion, I have a motive. My motive is to get the public to come before the committee to be able to have their say. That is a motive, and I’m not being called out of order for that.

I want to end on this particular point: It’s the government who created this crisis. For the government to come before us and say, “Oh, Lord, this is so important. We’ve got to deal with it.” That they’re prepared to even use a “notwithstanding” clause should they not win their appeal in court today, I think, is highly problematic. I think it sets a very, very dangerous precedent. We have never used the “notwithstanding” clause in the history of this province.

Do we have the right to use the “notwithstanding” clause? Of course we do. The government tried to argue the other night that we’re saying, in the opposition, that they don’t have the authority. Parliament is supreme. The Legislature is a power unto itself. It creates laws, and nobody can stop us from creating laws. That is our right; the courts have no jurisdiction over that.

But we are a constitutional democracy, which means to say that once we’ve passed a law, if a citizen or other organization or entity thinks that the law is breached in some way or that in some way the law tramples on constitutional rights, they have the right to go before the courts. The courts can pronounce themselves on the constitutionality of our law. That’s what has happened in this case. It was a case where the judge looked at the law and said, “You know what? This does trample on people’s rights in the Constitution and under the charter,” and made his decision.

We’ll find out today what the panel of the three judges will say. It could go either way; that’s the way these things go. But clearly, this was a question where the court pronounced itself on the legitimacy of our law when it comes to the Constitution. That’s all that’s happened over here.

The government tries to make it that, “First of all, judges shouldn’t do that because we’re the elected officials and they’re appointed, so they have no say on what we do.” What a silly thing for a Premier to say, quite frankly. Do you really want to start electing judges? Think about it: Have elected people decided what another elected person has done? You don’t want to get into that; that’s a silly system.

We appoint judges for a reason: They’re independent from us. They’re not politicized. Yes, there are New Democrats; there are Liberal judges; there are Conservative judges. We all know that. But once they get to the bench, they are there to interpret laws and to rule on law. It’s as simple as that.

For this government to somehow say that they don’t have the right to pronounce themselves on a law that was done in this Legislature that they feel is unconstitutional, based on the arguments that were put before the courts by Rocco and others, I think is just highly inflammatory.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing what the government has to say about us getting into an ability for the public to come before us, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate on the amendment as presented.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s always a pleasure to speak in the morning, and certainly on this issue, which we’ve been talking a lot about. As you know, we’ve been here a fair bit speaking about this.

We want to make sure that the council of Toronto is prepared to govern the most effectively they can for the citizens that they’re given the privilege to represent. As I stood in this House the other day, I talked a fair bit about it. Again, I don’t understand why, if there are 25 MPPs and 25 MPs, 25 city councillors cannot govern the same area.

We’re going to continue to move forward with this. We do believe it’s in the best interests of Ontarians across the province. I think we all know the reality that if the city of Toronto is moving and is going forward well, then that has huge effects on all of us. Obviously, many of our caucus are from rural Ontario. We need the balance. We need to ensure that both rural Ontario and our urban areas are effective levels of government. We are given a privilege in this province, in this country and in our municipalities to actually have democracy, to ensure that we actually have people for the people. That’s exactly what our Premier is trying to do.

All of our caucus is committed, when we got elected here, to stand up every day to make sure that we’re doing what we can, and to set the rules so that governments, at all levels that we’re able to relate to, have the most effective governments possible, and that we’re working for the people. We want effective administration. We want effective government. I can’t imagine anyone in this House doesn’t want effective government. So at the end of the day, you would hope that the members of the opposition would support, frankly, that we want to move forward, that we want to have efficiencies.

We’ve said over and over and over again that if we’re able to move forward, as we wish to do, that $25 million will be saved for the city of Toronto and, more importantly, for the people they serve. That can go towards things like transit. That can go towards things like housing, mental health and health care overall, the things that all of us care about and that the people that we are given the privilege to represent actually have at their disposal, when they need it. We want people to have timely access. We said we would get rid of hallway health care. That’s one of the things, again, we want to make sure of.

We continue to hear day after day after day from the members of the opposition that they’re concerned that people aren’t getting transit, they’re concerned that people aren’t getting housing, despite us actually committing to $1.9 billion specifically for mental health, the single biggest contribution and commitment ever to mental health in this province. We will deliver that, Mr. Speaker.

I said in here when I did my address the other day that we want certainty. We want everyone to understand what they are able to do. There is a time sensitivity to this, Mr. Speaker. It’s very daunting circumstances because of when the election is going to fall. October 22 is not that far down the road for people to make sure they understand who is running and who is going to be representing whom. That’s why we’ve kept pushing this. That’s why we have had the unprecedented realities that we’ve had—a night sitting—because we were so committed to ensuring that everyone knows exactly where they are and what they’re doing.

We believe that those people who are running for council—I certainly know that when I decided to run, you knew that there was going to be a 28-day campaign to a 32-day campaign, typically, and I was prepared to do that. In fact, we’ve run on a 28-day campaign or thereabouts for the three elections I’ve been in. It’s certainly ample, Mr. Speaker. I’ve had a lot of people coming to me saying, “Why are these municipal elections running so long? Why are those signs up for so long?”

I’m almost now tired of looking at the municipal signs because they’ve been up so long, and they came right on the heels of our election. I don’t understand why—as long as we put in front of everyone, “Here are the rules, here are the areas, here is the timeframe”—people can’t accept that. As a candidate or a potential candidate, you have the ability to look at what you understand at that time, before you sign your papers and say, “I’m going to go forward.” You know that there’s going to be a campaign—or, you can withdraw. Even if you put your name in early, you can still make that decision, Mr. Speaker.

When this legislation is passed, you’re going to know exactly how long you have to campaign. You’re going to know whether you’re still committed. At the end of the day, whether it’s 28 days or a longer period, you’re going to have the same conviction, you would hope. It shouldn’t be that I’m just coming in because I can now play a game longer. You’re going to say, “I want to be that person, I want to be that democratically elected representative, and I want to be there every day,” to make sure that, again, you’re serving the interests of the people that you’re given the privilege to stand in front of and be for and be held accountable by.

At the end of the day, I believe we will—passing this legislation—be able to say to everyone out there, “Here is the campaign, here is what you’re running for, here is the area you’re going to represent and the people you’re going to represent.” I certainly don’t hesitate to say again: If 25 MPPs can represent that population base in those areas and 25 MPs can serve that population base, I can’t understand for the life of me why you can’t have 25 municipal councillors.

At the end of the day, the municipalities are a creature of the province; we have the ability. I believe the opposition House leader has just said, again, that Parliament is supreme, that we are here to make the laws. That’s what we’re doing, is making the laws. He suggested, I think—and I just want to take him up on that—that we said that judges should be elected. I’m not certain that I’ve ever heard that. I don’t think, certainly, that that is what we’re suggesting.

What we’re saying is there’s definitely a distinct reality of we are the lawmakers, we’ve always been the lawmakers and we will continue to be the lawmakers. At the end of the day, I have the highest regard and the highest respect for our judiciary and our judges. That doesn’t mean that just because a judge says something, we don’t have the ability to challenge it. There are many others—I think even the members opposite will agree there are others—who have suggested that they were quite surprised by the ruling. We’ve obviously gone to that appeal today. We’re going to hear that ruling from three judges.

At the end of the day, I believe the opposition House leader did say that there could be a ruling in favour of our motion that we want to move forward. If that is the case, I hope he will then say, “We will respect the judiciary”—three, instead of one—“that says we are moving forward and we are going to be having this legislation.”

At the end of the day, I’d say I think we can always have different

interpretations and we can always have different thought processes, whether we agree or not, but we really want to ensure that the rules are interpreted and the judges give their ruling based on the actual law, not their own assessment, not what their own viewpoints are and not what they believe. It’s what is the law. That is their role, to interpret and say, “This is where it is.” In my reading, what I saw was that they very much didn’t like the timing, didn’t like how it came out, didn’t like this—that doesn’t really matter to us. What the ruling is: Is it constitutional? Are we able to?

The members opposite keep making a big deal that it’s never been used. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to introduce it. Why would we not respect the people that actually created the “notwithstanding” clause and allow them to truly be able to utilize that? If it’s there, they did it for a reason. They wanted a check and balance.

They wanted to be able to ensure that at the end of the day, democratically elected representatives who are given the privilege to make rules have that ability in the laws and are able to have that ability to utilize that tool within our constitutional framework to make sure that, as the opposition House leader said, Parliament is supreme. Just because it’s never been used doesn’t mean it can’t be used and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used. It is there.

They’ve even agreed and said, “We agree that it’s there and it’s there to be used.” Now we’re using it, but they’re saying, “But you shouldn’t,” because they don’t like why we’re using it. They don’t like the reality.

Again, I’m going to go back over and over and over again to time allocation and ensuring, in this case, that we believe there is an imminent time frame that we have to get to. We have to ensure that people have certainty—not just the people who are choosing to be candidates and choosing to run, but the people who are actually going to vote on this issue.

Again, let’s not forget that we still have a democratically governed system. The people are going to know exactly how long a campaign will be. They’re going to know the rules of that campaign. They’re going to understand who is running and what areas they’re representing. I don’t see that as any different than when I step up or you step up, Mr. Speaker, in a provincial campaign. You know exactly how long your campaign is going to be. You know exactly what you’re going to do in those 28 days. At the end of the day, the people have made a choice. In your case—glad to see you back. Great to see you back for your third term, Mr. Speaker. People had the ability.

When the opposition comes in and puts in amendments to these types of things, we start to wonder, again, is it about just the optics, what they want to be seen to be doing, as opposed to what it’s really going be governing? What is the reality of what the end result is?

We keep focusing back on the people. We want to ensure that there are more people getting the services that they deserve. The people who want to be able to have mental health, people who want housing, people who want better transit—they can actually get in and out and not have so much stress in their day just from travelling from that gridlock. We’ve heard nothing in my seven years here but concerns about the gridlock and the concerns that people have about trying to get to work and get home from work and the things that are limited in their personal lives with their children because they can’t get home in time.

When I see certain things like an amendment, we want to make sure that we are really, truly, at the end of day not just playing politics, not just trying to get the headline, not just trying to be able to say to their base, “Oh, we’re working hard and we’re fighting this.” What is the real end result? At the end of the day, we continue to stand here, saying, “We believe, and we have conviction, that by changing the size of government for Toronto, there’s going to be a better end result.” They’re going to be more effective, more efficient. They’re going to get more of those front-line services and the care that people deserve in a timely manner.

We believe, again, that $25 million is not a small amount of money over four years for them to be able to save and to ensure that that money goes into the things that, frankly—I will credit the opposition; they are saying that there need to be improvements in transit, that there needs to be more housing, that there needs to be more mental health, and health care across the board. There’s $25 million that could be going to those front-line services.

I think, again, we all come here with the intent—all of us, from all parties—to ensure that we are standing up for the people we represent, but we have to look beyond and just say that we’re not just doing this, again, for the next election; we’re doing this for the benefit of the people.

We’ve gone through the amendment. At the end of the day, the amendment is going to delay more. They’re going to try to put another stick in the spoke of the wheels, if you will, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that when we’re doing our job, we’re doing it in the most effective manner. Sometimes, like in this case, time allocation, we believe, is warranted, because again, going back, hearkening back, October 22 is not that far away.

If people are truly going to have a very clearly delineated set of rules that they know they’re running on so that those people who want to step up to the plate, frankly—and I’m honoured to be one of those people who chose to do so and have been given the privilege for seven years now to be in this hallowed chamber, this Legislature, to be able to govern on behalf of the great people of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound but, on a bigger scale, the province of Ontario. I want those people who want to run in the municipal election in Toronto to have exactly that. They need to have certainty.

They need to understand: “Here’s exactly who I’m going to be representing. Here’s the time frame that I’m going to have to run my election campaign.”

I have yet to have one member of the opposition give me a solid argument about why, if we can run on a 28-day campaign, those people who are stepping up to run for city council in Toronto can’t run on a 28-day campaign. I’m not certain why they won’t help us to get there so that we actually all know, with certainty. Rather than going back and forth in here, we could have this done. We could have been here a week ago. Those people, a week ago, could have had the information and have understood what they were doing.

A week and a half ago—if they would have voted with our original piece of legislation, we could have actually had those people with certainty. We could have let everyone know. We could have moved on to what they keep saying—all of the important things that we want to be debating, those bills that we could be introducing about health care.

The people that they purport to represent, the less fortunate, who need more services, the people who want mental health services—they keep talking about all of those people, but what are they truly doing today to help them with those front-line, day-to-day services and programs? They’re doing nothing to help that. I said in this House a couple of days ago that I have yet to see the Leader of the Opposition offer one idea that is actually going to help the people of Ontario. She has never once—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I would ask that the dialogue across the aisles stop so that I can hear what the honourable member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound has to say. As a result of that, I would strongly encourage both sides to stop the dialogue going back and forth so that we can continue to hear.

Please continue.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love debate, frankly, and I’m hopeful you’ll give me a bit more time. They keep taking my time away, and I’m not going to get everything in in the little 40 minutes that I have to talk about this. Even at my speed, I’m not going to get all of the words in. Even if I go into auctioneer chant style, I’m not certain I’m going to get everything out that I want to say, because I know the members of the opposition are listening intently to what I am saying and want to have a very wholesome debate with me on the merits and the facts, not all the innuendo and not all the partisan politicking.

Interjection: Wholesome debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: Wholesome debate—absolutely.

As I was saying before I had to sit and have it clarified by you of some of the members opposite not going through you to me, I want to ensure that we really do want the members of the opposition to work with us. We want them to actually offer up ideas that are going to be helpful and are actually going to work together with us.

As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition has not, since we started a new session, since we had the last election, offered one positive thought process. I can recall, in the earlier time of me being here, that the three leaders would actually exchange letters. They would get together and have a chat to try to move us forward with an agenda that we can all support and work on. They would actually send letters and say, “Here’s what I think, and I want to meet with you.”

I have not even sensed that the Leader of the Opposition wants to reach out and work with our leader. I don’t believe that she has even made the attempt to bring ideas to the table, other than a lot of anger and a lot of things that are being said to try to stoke the people outside of this chamber who don’t agree with the approach we’re taking.

At the end of the day, we are the government. Whether you like it, whether you don’t like it, what the numbers are, it doesn’t really matter. For the next three-plus years, we are the government, and we want to work with members on all sides of the House to ensure that we actually are doing things for the province of Ontario on getting us back on track.

We inherited a $335-billion debt. We had a government that was continually running deficits, and I want to point out that the official opposition, the NDP, supported every single budget in my seven years. They supported the Liberals getting us to that point, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day, we can’t continue to do that. The people of Ontario, the majority of people in Ontario—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Timmins on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders say that we have to be factual. The NDP actually voted against every one of Wynne’s budgets when she was in a majority government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): That’s not a point of order. I will now return to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, the government whip, please.

Mr. Bill Walker: Well, once again, I’m probably going to take issue with the opposition House leader. A fact is a fact. If people would go back to Hansard and see how they voted—I certainly know how we voted in this House, and that party has definitely propped up and enabled the Liberal government on many, many items.

Hon. Todd Smith: Ninety-seven per cent of the time.

Mr. Bill Walker: They’ve certainly been enabling, 97% of the time. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Todd Smith: The facts are the facts.

Mr. Bill Walker: The facts are the facts. You can have revisionist history in your mind if you like, but I think Hansard has probably recorded—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Waterloo will come to order. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bill Walker: Talking over me, Mr. Speaker, as you know, isn’t probably going to work, so I hope that at the end of the day we’re able to have cordial debate in here. I hope we’re able to have cordial debate. The members actually have to look in that mirror every day. They have to stand in front of their constituents and actually say what they did. They do it, I do it. I’m okay with how I voted in my seven years. I did not support the Liberal government, which ran up the highest debt and deficit in history—

Hon. Todd Smith: Well, they’re continuing to defend those Liberal policies every day now. They’re the official opposition.

Mr. Bill Walker: Yes, they almost want to again enable what’s going on. I can’t fathom that they want to do that. They like to sometimes be able to say publicly that they didn’t, but we know what the facts are. Hansard will have recorded that, Mr. Speaker, so people can go and search it out and find their own information.

We saw a lot of issues in this House where it was like this between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. That’s their right. That’s their choice to do that. But at the end of the day, I hope they’ll respect—they’re going to use numbers, but at the end of the day, as I have said in here a couple of times already, we are the government. The people of Ontario, through a democratically held election, chose us to be the government under the rules—whether you like it, whether you don’t like it, whether you want to spin numbers; it doesn’t really matter.

But we are the government, and we want to ensure—as I say, we keep offering and reaching out and saying, “Work with us. Help us. Help us move the province of Ontario forward.”

Opposition—I sat there for seven years, as you did, Mr. Speaker, so we know very well what the role of Her Majesty’s official opposition is, and that is to hold the government to account. But there’s nothing that stops them from saying, “I want to actually work with you. I want to reach across and give you one idea.” Just one idea is what we want to have.

Whether it’s talking about this amendment or we’re talking about the challenge to the bill, we want them to work with us. We want them to lower the temperature, if you will, at the end of the day, to work with the government, to actually offer ideas. It would be great to see the Leader of the Opposition step forward with an idea that’s proactive and solution-based, rather than trying to score political points and try to get some media.

We want them to ensure that they’re thinking again in the long term, not just the next election cycle, not just this week of headlines, not just what they’re going to be able to say to their followers. What are we really doing here, all 124 of us, to ensure that the province is better at the end of this four-year mandate? That’s what we’ve done.

This amendment is not going to help us do that. This amendment is yet again, as I’ve used the terminology, putting another stick in the spokes of the bicycle. It’s trying to grind it to a halt because they’re not agreeing with it. That is democracy. That is their right, certainly, to be able to argue their point, to be able to debate—which would be really nice, to have a solid, factual debate in here, rather than going along with a lot of spin and a lot of emotion and a lot of issues that really just get people fired up.

Again, I think even some of the language that’s being used continually by not only the leader but some of her members is inflammatory. It’s trying to stoke dissent. It’s certainly not in the spirit of working collaboratively and reaching out and having that trust that, regardless of our political stripes, we can sit at a table.

I know many of the members of the opposition. I’m getting to know some of the new members and I look forward to working with them as well. I’ve worked on a lot of different issues with members of the official opposition and we’ve got things done, as many of my colleagues have. But you only do that if there’s a spirit of collegiality and there’s a spirit of intent to work together beyond political points and beyond partisan talking points.

The official opposition doesn’t like the stance we’ve taken. They don’t like the direction we’ve taken. Again, I’m going to quote the official opposition House leader, who did say that Parliament is supreme. So if Parliament is supreme, and we’ve put a bill on the table, then I’m not certain why, after they’ve debated, they won’t say, “Okay, we’ll move on. We’ll start looking at things like how we improve transit, how we improve housing, how we improve mental health, how we improve services and programs for the less fortunate in our society.” Why will they not let us move on with that? Why will they not allow the city of Toronto to have that same opportunity?

In this case, I believe that there is going to be a ruling this afternoon. We don’t know, of course, what that ruling is going to be, but certainly the people in the legal field, the judicial experts I’ve read about, are saying they were quite shocked by the ruling of the original judge. Obviously it’s going back to the courts today. We’re going to find out what three of them think.

I hope that there aren’t going to be more games, that they’re not going to find another way to play a wedge if that ruling comes out in our favour. I hope they’ll step back and say, “We’ve done our job. We’ve stepped up as opposition and we’ve challenged the government on this policy.” But I’m hopeful that then they’ll turn the page. I truly hope that all members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, will take a much more conciliatory approach, that she’ll want to work with us, that she’ll want to find ways.

Certainly it’s her right and privilege—and she should; that’s their job—to challenge us. But you can do that in a lot of ways. You can do that in a way that the public will respect and that will garner more respect, in fact, as opposed to just bringing the angry, negative challenge to all things that we do.

Just because we’re the government doesn’t mean we’re wrong. I think people in this House immemorial have said, “If it’s a good idea, let’s do it,” but if it’s a bad idea, then obviously you’re going to challenge it. But at the end of the day, democracy is democracy. We were elected. We are here for the next three-plus years. And we want to get things done and put this province in a better place.

As you’re well aware—certainly I am—we’ve inherited a huge challenge, the most debt of any province in Confederation, more debt, almost, than the federal government. And that’s happened over a pretty short period of time. All the other governments of Ontario, up until this last 15-year reign of Liberal government, had not accumulated nearly the level of debt that we have today.

I want to remind people: It was the Liberals who created this nightmare. We have to spend a billion dollars a month on interest payments. That’s a billion dollars that’s not going to the people we all should be caring about, that we all want to improve the circumstances for.

I can’t fathom anyone out there who would want to continue down that path. I’m not certain how members opposite—not including our members who are opposite, obviously; I do want to clarify that we do have members on the opposite side of the House who perform a great role for us and who are as much a part of our government and our caucus as we are who are on this side of the House. The reality is, we just didn’t have enough seats for them all to be able to sit on this side.

I think it’s great that we have them over there. They can try to do some of that bridging between the other members who were elected and try to help find ways to move forward for all of us.

I’ve never been able to understand any member supporting the previous Liberal government when they wanted to continue to overspend and know that we were racking up that much debt that, again, is not going to the front-line services—a billion dollars a month to an interest payment. There’s not one person getting more ODSP. There’s not one person getting more Ontario Works. There’s not one person getting transit. There’s not one person getting more housing. There’s not one person getting the mental health services they so significantly need.

I hope that we can move forward today. I’m hopeful that we’re not going to support this amendment. It’s, again, just a delay tactic. It’s trying to slow things down rather than move us forward so that we can actually govern to the best of our ability.

They keep talking about the people of Toronto; that we’re “damaging the people of Toronto” were, I think, words that they’ve thrown out there. The opposition leader, again, said that the “notwithstanding” clause has never been used. That doesn’t mean it can’t, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t and it doesn’t mean that it’s not able to be used. I think he did use the words that the government “has the right” to use the “notwithstanding” clause.

Well, if we had the right—and in this case I think we’ve tried to suggest and paint a pretty clear picture—there’s a huge time concern, a very, very limited runway for this election to be held properly for the people to be able to make wise choices: for the people who want to run to make wise choices and for the people who are going to elect them to make wise choices.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition House leader has said that Parliament is supreme. Parliament brought a bill to the table and said, “We want to move forward with this piece of legislation. We want to get certainty for the people of Toronto.” It’s one step to helping them get through things like transit, housing, mental health and health care generally.

I’m hopeful that they will stop things like an amendment to an amendment to just slow down the system. They’ve made their point. I think they have made it very strongly. I think they have publicly gone out and made a lot of noise. That doesn’t make them right. It doesn’t mean that just because they make a lot of noise and a lot of bluster, we’re going to step down and agree with them. I think that at the end of the day they’ve served the purpose of opposition well, but now is the time for a collective rethink to say, “Do you know what? How do we work together?

How do we actually do things that are going to help the people of Ontario?” How are we going to ensure that the people they keep purporting to help—that they actually want to step up and do it?

I’m going to issue that challenge to the Leader of the Opposition again. Just once, I’d like her to step up and find a positive thing to offer to our government. I want her to be able to offer to meet with our leader and find something significant, to say, “How do we work together? How do we move forward and ensure that the people of Ontario are actually going to have better services, better front-line programs and care?” because they actually want to work with us, as opposed to being obstinate, as opposed to wanting to just yell because they’re not agreeing with the position we take. Mr.

Speaker, that’s never going to get us anywhere. A number of members I’ve spoken to want to work with us. I’m not certain why we can’t get the leader and a few other members who are playing the leadership roles to sit.

Mr. Speaker, I know a number of my colleagues wanted, and I wanted, a ton more time, because I think there’s lots still to be said, but at this point I’m going to defer to my colleagues. The member from Whitby, I believe, was going to follow me, and I can’t wait to hear what he has to say.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Good morning, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I’m pleased to join the debate today on the amendment put forward by the official opposition. I do it in the context of someone who had the privilege of serving, as you know, Speaker, for 13 years as a regional councillor, both for the town of Whitby and the region of Durham. During my time on regional council, what was clear to me was the importance of local government.

This particular amendment before us is really just another example of the official opposition first of all trying to slow the process down and, in the course of that, limit the importance of local government. What Bill 31 does—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Mr. Lorne Coe: What Bill 31 does, Speaker, is emphasize that all levels of government must work efficiently. I know you understand that because you’ve worked extensively with local government. It emphasizes that all levels of government must work efficiently and effectively for the people of the province.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing emphasized earlier this week, the proposed legislation has multiple parts. I want to highlight a couple of them because they’re material to why we’re here this morning and where we want to be. He explained the proposed changes for the city of Toronto for the members of the House—and he did it really well—and he drew, as I am, from his experience both as a mayor and city councillor in the area that he represents. Equally adept was the Attorney General, who spoke to the legal aspects surrounding the legislation, Bill 31.

Speaker, when the proposed changes in this legislation were first introduced, as you’ll recall, under the Better Local Government Act, our government spoke to the vision we have to review the way regional governments function. That’s a constructive aspect. It’s the way forward. It’s visionary. We must ensure that they are serving the needs of their communities. That’s what constituents expect. You understand that. Others in this chamber understand that. But, once again, we have an amendment that gets in the way of progress.

When I talk about ensuring that they’re serving the needs of their communities, it is at the core of what they do. It’s at the core of what all of us elected officials do, Speaker.

Our government for the people believes that regions in Ontario should be the ones to make important decisions about how they serve their residents. They can best speak to their communities’ needs and they can best make decisions for their residents. That includes how they select their regional chair.

It’s important in this discussion, Speaker—and I know you appreciate this. It’s a contextual piece; it’s about regional council history. I know you understand that because you’re very active in your constituency and you work hard with your level of government, particularly at the municipal level. But two years ago—let’s go back two years—the previous government changed the Municipal Act to require that regional municipalities select their chair by direct election. Municipalities that used to choose to appoint their regional chairs were no longer allowed to choose. There was one exception—and you’ll remember this.

The exception was Oxford county, which was allowed to continue to appoint one of their elected officials to also serve as their regional chair.

What the government is proposing is to reverse the changes that were introduced two years ago—changes that were unfair. We heard input, and you did too. They were unfair to regions that already had processes in place that worked for their local communities, Speaker. Four regional councils had to change their processes: York, Peel, Niagara region and the district of Muskoka. Four, Speaker.

What the government is proposing is to return to the system that was used in the 2014 election before the previous government’s legislation was enacted. This previous system is one that these regions are familiar with—very important—one that they decided worked best for them. Just stay with that for a moment, Speaker: worked best for them. So we are reversing the changes imposed by the previous government for this year’s election. In the future, regions would decide for themselves how to select their chair.

Speaker, let’s turn for a moment to two-tiered governments that I had the privilege of serving on for a number of years: the region of Durham, which is the upper-tier government, and the town of Whitby, which is the lower tier. Going forward, we want to give that decision-making power back to the regions because they understand. I know the members who are here this morning understand this. That’s at the root, because they understand better than anyone how this two-tiered municipal system works.

In Ontario’s regional government model, voters are represented at two levels: at a local municipal level—like the town of Whitby, which I had the privilege of serving for 13 years—and regionally, where municipalities come together to address issues that affect their larger regional area. In the region of Durham, that’s eight municipalities.

Speaker, regional governments, working with their member municipalities, decide what is best for their individual communities and the region as a whole. Regional government is a level of government that is close to the people. That’s been my experience; it continues to be my experience. They deal with everything from garbage pickup to policing to paramedics, from daycare to retirement to long-term-care homes, as is the case in the region of Durham. They administer for it. They know what their local communities need and they are more than capable of deciding how their regional government should operate.

This is something they did on their own for years—years—and we are confident they can continue to do so, because every region is unique. Speaker, you know that.

Let’s take as an example—because I think examples are material to our conversation here this morning—Peel region. This region has laid out 11 priorities for its regional council. Upper-tier governments undertake strategic planning sessions, Speaker, and Peel region is one. Some of those priorities in Peel region include affordable housing, planning and managing growth, and increasing waste diversion, and priorities such as modernizing service delivery, attracting top talent to the region and making the movement of goods more efficient. Taken together, these are all things that the region chose as important for their region overall and for their municipalities.

When you take a moment and you step back, as I do periodically, and when you scan the region of Durham’s strategic plan, you notice one thing: The majority of the municipalities in this region are focused on urban growth. That means they’re dealing with urban issues. They know about the demand for real estate in the 905 and the increased cost of living.

Downtown Mississauga is not a farming community. However, you can bet that agriculture is a number one priority in Niagara region. Niagara boasts some of this province’s finest wineries and farms. The region attracts tourists who contribute to the economic prosperity of their communities. Niagara needs a regional council that stands up for farmers and for the tourism that this industry brings into the region and local economy. Speaker, while Peel and Niagara may share some of the same needs, these regions are very different. They rely on very different economic drivers to survive and thrive.

York region is another example. Its strategic plan focuses on urban growth and transportation. We know that in the earlier discussions of Bill 31 we talked about transportation and we talked about economic development, but we also talked about affordable housing. Not surprisingly, affordable housing is also high on the region of York’s priority list.

Speaker, York is experiencing the same pressures that most of the municipalities in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area are feeling right now, dealing with an increasing population and high demand for homes. I say this and I provide this, again, as a contextual piece and a discussion of the amendment before us. I say it to underline the strengths and priorities of each area, but what is also clear in this discussion is not all regions are the same.

I earlier referred to my experiences as a municipal councillor. I’m honoured to stand here before you as a representative of Whitby, and I’m privileged to have served my community in various capacities as a municipal councillor.

I’ve also been privileged to lend a hand, as you have, with a lot of community groups like Whitby Sunrise Rotary Club, the Sports Hall of Fame, and Hearth Place Cancer Support Centre. I’m not the only one, though, in this chamber. I’m not the only one, Speaker, who has given back to their communities. I know you’ve done a lot of sterling work in that regard and continue to do so, and I commend you for that. Premier Doug Ford was a Toronto city councillor for four years, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who introduced this bill earlier this week, was the mayor of Brockville for 10 years.

Not unlike Premier Ford, I’ve devoted myself to public service and feel privileged to continue to do so here at the Legislature. As a former municipal politician in a two-tiered municipality, I can safely say that regions know what is best for their local community.

Speaker, I’m just about to conclude and hand off the debate to some of my other colleagues on the government side of the House who want to enter the discussion, but let me end this way: What Bill 31 is doing is proposing to return decision-making powers back to the regions. In future elections they should be able to select their heads of council. When our government for the people initially announced our intention to propose these changes, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, “It doesn’t matter if you’re in a rural or urban municipality, what you see time and time again is that the municipal level of government is the closest to the day-to-day lives of most people.”

I’ll conclude with this: The minister said, “This is another example of the province getting out of the way and making local government worker harder, smarter and more effectively to make life better for everyone” in the province of Ontario.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to enter the debate today. I look forward to the subsequent comments from my colleagues on the government side of the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Doug Downey: I rise to speak on the amendment. I’m quite pleased—very pleased—to announce, as others looking at it through email may know by now, that the stay was granted. This will allow the city clerk of Toronto to move forward with certainty, in the kind of certainty that we were achieving through Bill 31 and that was being frustrated by amendments like this.

The election will go forward. We’re very positive about the result. It’s time to put the political games behind us and some of the obstructionist amendments and whatnot. We look forward to it. We look forward to getting back to city council focusing on what they need to do in housing and infrastructure.

We’ll continue the appeal. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker. We will continue the appeal, but the stay creates certainty for the coming election on October 22.

My colleague before me was talking about his experience in government—in municipal governments and regional governments. I think it would be interesting for this House—I want to mention some of the municipal experience that exists in the government benches.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister Clark—he introduced the legislation, of course—was the mayor of Brockville. I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody.

The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, Amanda Simard, was a municipal councillor from Russell. The member from Markham–Unionville, Billy Pang, was a school board trustee. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Fedeli, was the mayor of North Bay.

The member from Whitby, who was just speaking, was a town councillor and regional councillor for 13 years. The Minister of Transportation, Minister Yakabuski, was a municipal councillor. The member from Sarnia–Lambton, Bob Bailey, was a township councillor.

I was a municipal councillor for a few terms, and I served on the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities board for a term, so I have a perspective across the province on municipal issues. I come at this issue, the municipal issue, with ground experience, and our caucus comes at this with ground experience. We have our ear to the ground in the municipal world. The Minister of Municipal Affairs mentioned the almost 600 consultations at AMO recently—600. That is unprecedented engagement with our municipal partners.

In addition to serving on a council myself, being involved in OSUM and being involved in AMO directly—the Minister of Municipal Affairs was the president of AMO many years ago—I also hold a master’s of law in municipal and development law, so I’ve spent time academically studying what happens in municipalities, how they work and how they don’t work. I have a passion for this area. I practise law in municipal. I advise municipalities. I advise individual councillors, school board trustees, city clerks, planners. It’s been part of my life for over 20 years.

We don’t come at this lightly. We come at this with the best interests of the people of Toronto, the best interests of the province of Ontario, because it is important—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Timmins will come to order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Do not challenge me.

Mr. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry to the member opposite if I am impugning motive to myself, which I don’t actually understand, but that’s okay. This is in line with the kind of amendment that I’m talking about. It’s really just a bit of a squirrel-type tactic.

Beyond all the municipal experience and the ground game that we have in our caucus—on both sides of the House, I may add, because the people of Ontario recognize that they want that experience put to work and they sent 76 of us here to do it—the people of Ontario expect their municipal politicians to be responsive and able to address their issues.

This is something that we’re hearing about from the people of Toronto. You don’t have to be an MPP from Toronto to hear from people in Toronto. We all have friends, colleagues and former clients who are in Toronto, who are sending emails. I am getting so many emails and phone calls from people in Toronto saying, “Keep going. Make this happen. We need to get infrastructure moving. We need to get transportation moving. We need to get things done.”

All of us are hearing the same thing. All members of this House are hearing the same thing. Some are admitting it; some are not. But we’re all getting those emails. We recognize things aren’t working and work is not getting done in the city of Toronto. Look, social housing is suffering. Their budget process is suffering. The bureaucracy is growing and there’s no greater output. The infrastructure is behind. The most common building that is happening in the city of Toronto is the building of roadblocks. We need to deal with that. We are dealing with that. With this stay there is certainty for the clerk to move forward.

The opposition may say, “But look at all the things that we’re dealing with. Look at all the things a councillor does. We need more people to do it all.” All I can say is, we should never confuse motion with action—never confuse that. Just because there’s lots of commotion, it doesn’t mean anything is getting done. That’s what we’re seeing: a lot of commotion. We’re seeing day-long meetings at city hall. There’s another politician that talks about this kind of action, about lots of noise and lots of motion but no action. The phrase is, “All hat and no cattle.”

Further with the amendment, the other interesting thing about the city of Toronto is that one third of the municipal councillors are calling for this change. Now, I sat on a council of eight, plus one as mayor—nine. I can’t even imagine three of the councillors standing up and saying, “Make us smaller. Get us down to almost half our size.”

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

I will remind the member from Barry–Springwater–Oro-Medonte that you have time left, should you choose to use it, at the appropriate time.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now it is 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to welcome all the visitors who are here with us today in the House.

Report, Integrity Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report concerning the review of cabinet ministers’ and opposition leaders’ expense claims, complete as of September 14, 2018, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner.

Decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask for the House’s attention. I wish to make a brief statement on

part VI of the standing orders, specifically standing orders 23(

h) and 23(i), which state that it is inappropriate in debate for a member to make “allegations against another member” and it is inappropriate in debate for a member to impute “false or unavowed motives to another member.”

From time to time in recent days, I have reminded members that imputing motive on the part of another member is not appropriate and makes it much more difficult for the Speaker to maintain order and decorum, which is the Speaker’s basic responsibility as explained in standing order 13.

Once again, I want to implore members that imputing false motives against another member is not appropriate, it is not helpful and, subject to the judgment of the Chair, it is contrary to the standing orders.

I know that all members are honourable, and no member should deliberately wish to be in breach of the standing orders. However, today I feel compelled to make something clear to all members. If, in the opinion of the Chair, the imputing of false motives continues to occur, the Chair may ask the member to withdraw the statement. If in this instance the offending member refuses to withdraw or persists in the behaviour in defiance of standing orders 23(

h) and 23(

i) and the Chair’s ruling on them, the Chair may exercise his or her authority to call for further debate or the next question, and the offending member may lose the floor.

Thank you very much. It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Deputy Premier: Is it the government’s plan to plow ahead with an election in Toronto despite today’s decision, with Bill 5 still being appealed and the chaos around Toronto’s election process certain to continue?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: We’re pleased that the Court of Appeal has granted the stay. This will allow the city clerk to go forward with a 25-ward election that is aligned with federal and provincial boundaries. It’s a very positive result for the people of Toronto.

I ask through you, Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: Let’s stop the political games. Let’s move forward on an effective and efficient city council through the 25 wards—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Deputy Premier: This falls into the category of “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

After never mentioning it once on the campaign trail, the Premier decided to rewrite the rules for municipal elections that were already under way, throwing municipal elections into chaos and trampling people’s basic rights.

Now, many doubt at this point in time that free and fair elections can actually be conducted in the city of Toronto, and the courts have yet to give their final determination because now the appeal is stayed. But the government continues to plow ahead. Is that what constitutes success in Doug Ford’s Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition of to refer to the Premier as the Premier, not by his personal name.

Response? Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: This is a very positive result for the citizens of Toronto. We can now, on October 22, have an effective and efficient 25-person council that can make those important decisions, decisions that our government has talked about numerous times in this House—things like transit and infrastructure and housing. After October 22 we look forward to working with Toronto’s next mayor and council and delivering on those priorities to Torontonians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let’s not forget that the appeal has not actually been decided. Many doubt that Toronto can now hold a fair election, or whether it will be legally valid.

Canada has a history as a democracy of holding free and fair elections, but the Premier seems happy to roll the dice, proceed with an election and let the chips fall where they may. Is that the sort of history the Deputy Premier wants to make?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: I’m going to read some of the court’s decision. This is the court’s decision:

“We have concluded that there is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and that the Attorney General’s appeal to this court will succeed.

“It is not in the public interest to permit the impending election to proceed on the basis of a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation duly passed by the Legislature.”

This is what we’ve been saying all along, Speaker. Again, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: We are committed to working with the city of Toronto and the clerk’s office to have a 25-person council after October 22 that we can work with. That’s what we’re doing today.

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. We know that the Premier has been obsessed with proving that he can do this. He has talked endlessly about his old enemies at his old job at city hall; he literally barricaded himself inside the Legislature in the dead of night while citizens were locked outside—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: He spent untold sums fighting in the courts and keeping staff here at all hours. But the question has never been whether he could do it; it was whether he should do it.

Did the Deputy Premier really get into public life to help the Premier execute his petty vendettas at all costs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question—or rather, response. I apologize.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: She wants to talk about freedom of expression. I’m actually going to quote from the court decision today, where they mention that particular fact. Here’s the quote:

“While the change brought about by Bill 5 is undoubtedly frustrating for candidates who started campaigning in May 2018, we are not persuaded that their frustration amounts to a substantial interference with their freedom of expression.”

Again, Speaker, we have made Bill 5. Now, because of the decision today, it will finally allow us to move forward and provide that certainty that our government has always wanted for October 22, a certainty where those 25 wards will cover those municipal councillors just like they cover provincial politicians in this House, or federal politicians. It’s the same boundaries. It’s going to provide that—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we’ve all been sent here to do important work for families, and when we debate bills we’re supposed to ask the tough questions: whether the policy is effective, whether it will help people, whether it’s a good idea. Unfortunately, the standard of this government seems to be, “Can we get away with this?”

Ontario families are facing challenging times. Does the Deputy Premier think that that’s good enough?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: I’m going to again quote the court. The court said, “The candidates were and are still free to say what they want to say to the voters. The inconvenience candidates will experience because of the change from 47 to 25 wards does not prevent or impede them from saying what they want to say about the issues arising in the election.”

Again, Speaker, I want to emphasize to the Leader of the Opposition: Let’s put aside these political games. Let’s work together with that new council. We want to deal with the new council on housing issues and infrastructure issues and transit issues. Why won’t the Leader of the Opposition accept this decision? Let’s move forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Start the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m shocked that somehow the minister thinks question period is a political game, Speaker. It’s actually our duty to hold the government to account. Families need shorter hospital wait times. They need safe schools and good jobs. They’re looking to the government to focus on those priorities and deliver for them. Instead, they see a Premier focused on former enemies and ancient grudges, who won’t lift a finger to help a working mom on minimum wage but will move heaven and earth to eliminate political opponents at city hall.

The Deputy Premier and her fellow all-stars know that this has been a wasteful debate on bad policy. At what point will she and her fellow caucus members tell the Premier to get his priorities straight?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: Again, I’m going to keep reading her these quotes because she needs to understand the importance of what happened this morning. The Ontario Court of Appeal said, “Given our tentative conclusion that Bill 5 does not suffer from constitutional infirmity, we have no hesitation in finding that the balance of convenience favours granting a stay.”

Speaker, we’re here today, and I again commit to the clerk of the city of Toronto: We’re going to work with you. We’re going to work with you under this ruling this morning to have that 25-councillor election and to be able to, on October 22, work with that mayor and council on the important issues for Torontonians. We’re wanting to move forward with Bill 5, and, again, I’ll ask the members opposite to do the same.

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who needs to know that an appeal is still ongoing; it has just been stayed at this moment.

Bill 5 was introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on July 30, but the ministry says that there are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order on the government side.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Bill 5 was introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on July 30, but the ministry says that there are no records of the minister being told to draft the bill. I’m guessing that it didn’t appear by magic, so did the all-star Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing draft Bill 5?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: Again, this is just more political games from the opposition, who continually stand up for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition benches, come to order.

Hon. Steve Clark: I didn’t do a freedom of information on the NDP to find out if they ever used the words “efficient and effective local government.” I think I know that there would be no responsive records to that either.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Cutting Toronto council wasn’t in the throne speech. It wasn’t in the PC platform, not that there was even a PC platform. But someone told government lawyers to draft Bill 5. We asked through an FOI whether the minister was told to do it, and the response was that there was no record of the minister being told to draft Bill 5, no description of what was to be done, no memo telling the minister to cancel some regional chair elections but not other regional chair elections.

Was the all-star minister warming the bench while the bill was being drafted?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, I’m going to use very parliamentary language. I’m not going to talk about her campaign during the last election. I’m going to talk about what the Premier and many of us spoke about every day in the campaign, and that’s about reducing the size and cost of government, the fact that we want government to work effectively and efficiently.

The fact of the matter is that she can say all she wants, but Bill 5 is going to provide that effective and efficient and streamlined council. On election day and the day after the election, we’ll be there to work with our government on those important issues for the citizens of Toronto. That’s the bottom line.

Taxation

Mr. David Piccini: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. This morning, people across Ontario were elated to wake and receive news of relief at the pumps. On my commute in today from Northumberland–Peterborough South, I saw motorists lined up on County Road 2 at gas stations all across my riding. They were lined up waiting to fuel, excited at the prospect of paying a few cents less for their fuel.

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in exactly what we’ve been saying: The people of Ontario can’t afford paying additional premiums on gas. We all know that under the NDP, we would have been paying a lot more for gas. The people of Ontario can’t afford a carbon tax. Times are tight, and the Premier promised that relief is on the way.

Can the Minister of the Environment please explain to the House how these changes, reducing the cost of gas—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Northumberland–Peterborough South: Thank you for that question. As the member said, this is something that Doug Ford has been speaking about. He spoke in this Legislature. Many of us in the governing party have talked about the fact that help was on the way and that one of the ways that help was on the way was removing the regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade program.

One of the first pieces of evidence of that, we said, would be a reduction in prices at the pump. As has been reported in the media now, as all of us have witnessed with the lineups at the pump—a 4.6% reduction in gas prices because of eliminating cap-and-trade. That’s action that this government promised. A 5.7% reduction in diesel prices: That’s what this government promised. Promise made, promise kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to remind the Minister of the Environment that it would be helpful if he called the Premier “Premier,” not by his personal name.

Supplementary?

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. They just don’t get it, Mr. Speaker: Not everyone can hop on the TTC. Too many families told me during the election that their commute to take their kids to hockey, to take their kids to soccer—they couldn’t afford gas prices. This Premier promised relief is on the way. This Premier has delivered. Seeing the lineup at the gas pumps this morning is a true testament to the relief that families need.

Interjections.

Mr. David Piccini: You’re out of touch. You just don’t get it.

Georgian College business professor Norm Smith recognized the work that we’ve done and stated, “We’re seeing carbon taxes coming off, and as a result, you can see prices coming down.” Can the minister explain to this House what this government is doing to ensure that we stay true to our promise that relief is on the way and residents will receive relief in our gas prices?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration in the NDP. I can understand it. They talk about the highest carbon tax in the world. We took action. One of this government’s first acts was to repeal the regulation and that sent the message to the natural gas companies that they could take the pressure off Ontarians. That’s why we can now expect to see—and we have seen—4.6% reductions in the price of gas and 5.7% reductions in diesel fuel. This will be part of the $260 for every family that we will see reduced every year. We will start to see natural gas prices come down next month.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government taking action. This is a government keeping its promises: money in people’s pockets. Promise made, promise kept.

Natural gas

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. There currently exists a $100-million grant program to fund the expansion of natural gas into rural areas. Is the minister cancelling this funding?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much to the member opposite for this very important question.

I’d first like to begin by thanking all those MPPs in all parties here at the Legislature for attending the very successful opening day of the International Plowing Match in Pain Court. Furthermore, I’m very proud to say that almost all of the government members, including most members of cabinet and the Premier, attended the opening night reception and the parade yesterday. Thanks to all my colleagues on the government side.

Mr. Speaker, we made a very important campaign commitment to open Ontario up for business and to lower energy costs. This afternoon, I’m pleased to say that I will be tabling the Access to Natural Gas Act, and I look forward to talking more about this in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I thought it was a straightforward question, and I look forward to seeing if I get an answer in this part.

The PC platform says its natural gas expansion program is based on “enabling private sector participation.” I don’t know what this means since almost all natural gas in Ontario is already delivered by a single private monopoly. But the platform says there will be a $100-million saving, which tells me the natural gas expansion grant is being cancelled and that means someone else will have to make up the difference. I’m pretty sure the private sector is not going to just give away $100 million.

Isn’t “enabling private sector participation” just a fancy way for the minister to say he’s cutting his grant program and increasing natural gas prices?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much again for this question. We will talk more this afternoon about our details in the Access to Natural Gas Act, but I’m proud to say that this government over the next number of years is going to provide natural gas to almost 80 communities across the province. In the next number of years, we’re going to have almost 35,000 new additional natural gas customers across the province.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the greatest things that we can do to expand natural gas to rural and remote communities, to open Ontario up for business and to lower energy costs for those people living in rural and northern communities in our province.

I’d also like to remind the members opposite that switching to natural gas will save almost $2,500 per year per household. Starting on October 1, we’re going to reduce natural gas bills by $80 a year for families and $285 for small businesses.

Taxation

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Ontario has made significant progress in reducing emissions, but the people of Ontario have made significant sacrifices to achieve these results. We have been taxed and taxed and taxed. The cap-and-trade carbon tax was just another example of that. It was a hidden tax that was buried in the prices of fuel at the pumps.

Eliminating this tax and lowering gas prices will put more money in the pockets of moms and dads. Eliminating this tax and lowering gas prices supports our workers and small business owners in our big cities as well as our small towns.

Speaker, this morning drivers across Ontario woke up to a pleasant surprise. Some relief had arrived. Can the Minister of the Environment update the House on the progress we are making?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for his question. He is quite right: Ontarians have made a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon footprint of this province is 30% lower than it was in 1990. But, Mr. Speaker, there is still more for us to do. That’s why we will bring forward a plan to this Legislature, a plan that will reduce greenhouse gases, a real plan.

In the meantime, we are fulfilling our promise, a promise that was made to put money back in the pockets of Ontario families, a promise to get rid of the regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade program, a promise that is now being realized with that 4.6-cents-per-litre reduction that has been widely reported. Experts, people like Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP who now reports on such things, confirm that this is the result of this government’s actions.

Money in pockets and an environment plan that works: promise made, promise kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to thank the minister for this answer. Still to the Minister of the Environment: This morning, my constituents in Mississauga–Erin Mills on their way to school or to work were thrilled to see a long overdue drop in prices at the pump. Our government promised to make life more affordable for Ontarians. That help was finally on the way.

After consulting with my constituents during the campaign and over the summer, our government had a clear mandate to get rid of the cap-and-trade carbon tax. They wanted to keep more of their own hard-earned money in their pockets and not in the Liberal cap-and-trade slush fund.

Lowering gas prices, reducing energy costs, cancelling cap-and-trade: Can the Minister of the Environment elaborate on why these initiatives are so important to Ontarians?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for his question. This is so important because Ontarians have paid enough. There has been pressure on the average Ontario family for too many years: too many regulations that affect their lives, too much taxation that affects their lives. That’s why this plan is part of a bigger package when it comes to reducing hydro rates; when it comes to making natural gas more available and affordable, which we heard about today; when it comes to a whole series of initiatives, including eliminating the regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade program, to put money back in people’s pockets.

While the opposition carps about the fact that this government isn’t making a difference for the people of Ontario, we are. We are making a difference; we are putting money in their pockets: 4.6 cents per litre, 5.7 cents for diesel. And that’s just the beginning, Mr. Speaker. There’s more to come.

Government accountability

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question this morning is to the President of the Treasury Board. Early this summer, the government flew in Gordon Campbell to conduct an Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry into Ontario’s finances. The government received the report over a week ago, but it has still not been made public. You know Ontarians are looking for transparency, so I ask the minister, where is the report?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member opposite: I want to congratulate the member on her new role as critic for not only the President of the Treasury Board but my good friend the Minister of Finance.

This government is committed to ensuring accountability and trust when it comes to public finances. It is time to stop digging and figure out how big the hole is. This is why our government launched this Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry. And this inquiry is only a part of our commitment to the state of the province’s finances. We will also contribute to the line-by-line review already under way.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, who has led the charge on this commission of inquiry. We will have more to say in the coming days to help restore accountability and trust in the debt and deficits of the government of Ontario that we inherited.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Again to the President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, but I was looking for an answer about the date.

Given the time frame to conduct such a large-scale inquiry—headed by the former BC Premier, who we know is known for his cut-and-privatize agenda—and the fact that we already have an independent officer of the Legislature whose job it is to audit government finances, what does the government expect to learn from the report that it could not have learned from our Auditor General?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for the question. Our government has received the report of the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry. We thank commission chair Gordon Campbell and members Michael Horgan and Dr. Al Rosen for their diligent work to examine the accounting practices of the previous government and meet the deadlines that we provided to them.

We are reviewing the report to ensure the implications of the recommendations are considered in full. We will release the report in its entirety to the public, as promised. The public will see the exact same report that we saw. We are committed to restoring accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances.

Municipal government

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is for the Deputy Premier. I’m not sure if the Deputy Premier knows, but in the city of Toronto there are 338 boards, agencies and commissions that require a city councillor to be able to conduct business. This includes standing committees, the 83 BIAs across the city, boards and agencies, as well as intergovernmental organizations like the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The 25 elected councillors will be required to sit on those boards and fulfill those duties. Does the Deputy Premier think that 25 councillors will be able to conduct business in an accountable manner?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you, I want to thank the member for the question. The simple answer is yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m very glad that the answer has been yes, but I am going to raise another question at this point.

If this is the case, let’s talk about what’s happening today. The board meeting for Exhibition Place that was scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled because they don’t have quorum; not enough city councillors are available. The ongoing labour dispute at Exhibition Place will not be dealt with and the lockout will now continue indefinitely. This will be the way, potentially, under Bill 5, that the city could operate.

My question is this: Is the government trying to shut down the voice of the people of Toronto?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the member—

Interjection: Just say yes .

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again I want to say, let’s stop the political games. We had a decision this morning.

With Bill 5, our goal has always been to provide efficient and effective government for the citizens of Toronto. We have stated very clearly that we believe that the 25 elected MPs and 25 elected MPPs do a great job in representing those electoral boundaries, those constituencies—

Mr. Michael Coteau: Do it in your hometowns. One councillor per 6,000 people—

Hon. Steve Clark: Despite the shouts from the opposite benches, I think it was very clear. The Court of Appeal concluded, “There is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and that the Attorney General’s appeal to this court will succeed.”

Further, “The judgment under appeal was probably wrongly decided,” and “It is not in the public interest to permit the impending election to proceed on the basis of a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Next question.

Taxation

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I listened with excitement to his earlier answer about families seeing relief at the pumps with the price of fuel going down through the efforts of our government. However, not all are as excited. After all, the opposition NDP campaigned on a promise to keep the cap-and-trade carbon tax. Many of them even suggested the price of gas was not high enough.

The NDP does not see high gas prices as a problem. In fact, they aspire to higher prices. In fact, the member for Ottawa Centre expressed his support through imposing a carbon tax that would increase the price of gas by 30 cents per litre. Since I can’t ask him his opinion, Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. What will he do to ensure members like that are never in a place to make these kinds of dangerous policy decisions?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for Simcoe North for her question. I know she works very hard for her constituents, as all members do.

This government is going to keep its promises. That’s how it’s going to ensure that the kinds of policies that we ran on, the kinds of policies that Ontarians expect, like lower gas prices, are the policies that are preserved in Ontario.

This morning, when Ontarians woke up, when drivers were going to work and when they lined up because they saw gas was cheaper, that didn’t happen by accident. That happened because of a deliberate choice made by this government and by this Premier to make a reduction, by getting rid of the regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade program—

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It didn’t happen because of you. It happened because of a season change.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Windsor West, come to order.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said, this is just the beginning. Natural gas prices will be dropping. The value for an average family will be $260 a year. The opposition may not think that that’s a lot of money, but let me tell you, it is a lot of money. We can expect to see continued money back in people’s pockets. We continue to see—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. Again to the Minister of the Environment: The opposition NDP aren’t the only ones who are upset by cheaper gas prices. The Trudeau Liberals also must not appreciate the fact that the people of Ontario are finally seeing how much carbon taxes are actually costing them. The threat of the federal Liberal carbon tax continues to hang over the heads of Ontario families and the federal government is hand in hand with the NDP in their support for higher gas prices. They both want you to pay more for gas and for everything else.

We promised we would fight the federal carbon tax with everything we’ve got. Can the Minister of the Environment update this House as to what he is doing to ensure these lower gas prices are here to stay?

Hon. Rod Phillips: The member is correct. Not only does the opposition want higher gas prices, but the federal Liberals have committed to imposing a carbon tax on Ontarians, a carbon tax that we ran against, a carbon tax that we said we would stand against.

Mr. Speaker, as I shared—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Transportation, come to order.

Hon. Rod Phillips: As I shared with the Legislature earlier this week, last Friday we filed a statement of particulars with the Court of Appeal, a statement of particulars that outlines why we see that federal carbon tax as unconstitutional. I’d ask the members opposite to consider whether they want to stand with us on behalf of Ontarians. Do they want to stand against the federal Liberals or continue their push for higher gas prices? Where do you stand?

Child care

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Minister of Education. Congratulations on your portfolio. I look forward to working with you.

Last month, this Conservative government quietly eliminated the for-profit maximum threshold, which had limited provincial funding for corporate and for-profit child care operators. Now the Ford government has slashed almost $23 million in funding that was supposed to go to low-income families to assist with child care costs.

In a memo sent to the child care stakeholders last month, the government stated that it had made these decisions “in response to feedback from partners.” Can the minister tell us exactly who they consulted before deciding to cut child care subsidies for low-income families? Who are these partners?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to stand in this House today and say that we made a commitment to parents across Ontario. We promised to respect parents and we’re delivering on that promise, because we had a previous administration that was choosing who and where parents had to take their children for daycare. In rural Ontario, in some instances, parents were having to drive 20 minutes out of their way to turn around and then head back to work. Speaker, it wasn’t working.

What we’re doing as a PC government is listening to parents across all of Ontario and enabling them to make choices that fit their family and prove to be effective and efficient.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you for your response, but it’s unfortunate and disappointing that, clearly, they didn’t consult with any of the low-income families. Studies have shown that not-for-profit—

Interjections.

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, they may drown me with their distasteful, disgraceful ways, but they cannot drown the people of Ontario.

Studies have shown that not-for-profit child care offers higher standards of care and better wages for workers. This is why child care advocates have urged the province to expand not-for-profit child care spaces. We know that the biggest issue in the child care sector is the lack of affordable, high-quality, safe child care spaces.

By removing the for-profit threshold, this government is opening the doors to large chain providers. By cutting millions of dollars in assistance for low-income families, they are making child care less affordable for those who need it.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario needs to move forward, not backward. Can the minister tell us: Who did the minister cut a deal with in favour of corporate, for-profit child care providers?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Really and truly, what we’re doing is expanding daycare choices across Ontario, and we’re respecting parents and their need to have choice in how they manage their family. The nanny state of the previous administration was proven not to work. We’re listening to parents across Ontario.

Again, I invite any member of the opposition to come out to my riding—out of the bubble of Toronto—and see how parents need choice. We cannot allow a continuation of parents to have to drive 25 kilometres out of their way just to turn around to get to work 40 kilometres from there. It’s not efficient, it’s not effective and it’s not good for Ontario families.

I am very pleased to say that Premier Ford and the Ontario PC government is standing by parents, respecting parents, and we’re giving them choice. That’s what government should do.

Natural gas

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Minister, along with many of my colleagues, I can assure you that I had a fabulous time at the International Plowing Match, which was hosted in Chatham-Kent. And I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hundreds of volunteers who worked tirelessly to make it such a success.

Yesterday, the Premier’s speech made reference to all that our government for the people is doing to assist small, rural and northern communities. Would the minister please elaborate on the legislation he will be introducing later today and how it will help people of rural Ontario?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much for that great question. I would first like to thank the member for her kind words of hospitality regarding her enjoyment at the International Plowing Match yesterday. I’m extremely grateful, as I said earlier today, for the opportunity to have showcased my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, the community of Pain Court in the municipality of Chatham-Kent, and to bring attention to the rural issues and the rural way of life of those families.

Mr. Speaker, later today I will be extremely honoured to introduce my first piece of legislation as the Minister of Infrastructure, entitled the Access to Natural Gas Act. This legislation will propose to facilitate the expansion of access to natural gas by working with the Ontario Energy Board to develop regulations to expand the private sector’s participation in community projects.

Speaker, we told the people and businesses in rural and northern Ontario that we intend to expand natural gas. Ontario is open for business. We’re going to lower energy costs. Promises made—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Donna Skelly: To the minister: Earlier this morning, you mentioned that this proposal will allow further expansion of natural gas, driven by the private sector. Given that the Access to Natural Gas Act proposes to enable further expansion of natural gas projects, driven by the private sector, I know that many of my colleagues and people from right across rural and northern communities are keen to hear more about how this program will impact the rural economy and agricultural competitiveness.

My question is this: How many communities will now be able to access natural gas and how does this program compare to the previous one?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: As the Premier mentioned at the plowing match, our new program will allow for 78 communities and 33,000 households to have access to reliable, cost-effective and clean natural gas, who previously were dependent on electric heat, propane oil and diesel to heat their homes. This will help to make life more affordable for many families and will help to reduce costs for new and existing businesses in Ontario, helping to fulfill a key commitment that our government has made to the people of this province.

For example, this program will help rural and agricultural communities by providing farmers with more opportunities to leverage modern technology to grow food and provide support for our booming greenhouse industry. This program will provide more communities with reliable access to clean natural gas in a cost-effective way to minimize the burden on the taxpayer.

While the previous Liberal government limited private sector innovation and efficiencies, our government will listen to the real experts, the people of Ontario, and partner with—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Child poverty

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Instead of talking about the issues that Ontarians expect their government to tackle, the Premier’s top priority has been to interfere in Toronto’s democratic elections. Why does the minister believe Toronto’s municipal election is a more urgent priority than reducing child poverty, now that Toronto has become the child poverty capital of Canada?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m finally happy that this New Democratic Party is actually talking about something else other than a municipal election simply in the city of Toronto. The rest of us live in other places. There are lots of problems going on, and we’re delighted that they finally joined us—to the party—right here in question period.

Let me tell you what we’re going to do: One in seven Ontarians lives in poverty in the province of Ontario. We have been steadfast in our determination to change our social assistance programs so we can help people get out of poverty and lift them up and into jobs where they can, and give them more supports when they can’t. But I can tell the member opposite that if she wants to actually help people, we have to build a compassionate society. That’s the best social safety net. The best way that we can ensure that we have a social program is getting people a job.

But I am delighted, for once in the last couple of weeks, that this New Democratic Party is actually talking about something other than themselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members take their seats.

Supplementary.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Back to the minister: Every day, poverty is deepening in Ontario. Toronto has become the child poverty capital of Canada. In some Toronto communities, over half of all children are living in poverty. Every year, between 90 and 120 of Ontario’s most vulnerable children die while under the province’s care. This is unacceptable. These are the issues Ontarians expect their government to deal with, but instead this government is taking up valuable time and resources to interfere in Toronto’s municipal election.

Minister, when is the government going to start taking action on the issues—not just cutting social assistance; actually taking action on the issues that actually matter to Ontarians, rather than creating chaos?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: We took action on June 29, the minute we were appointed to the cabinet. I started immediately with briefings within my ministry to ensure that the one in seven people—not just in the city of Toronto. I know that for those members in Toronto, you think this is all about yourselves, but here’s the situation: Right from Ottawa all the way to Kenora, we’re standing up for the people who need our help the most, and those one in seven people who are being trapped in a system of abuse, a cycle that has kept them down—it’s something that I couldn’t stomach.

That’s why in the first few days of being minister, we put the pause on what the previous government was doing, but under compassionate grounds ensured that we had a 1.5% increase across the board on social assistance. We set a hundred-day target in order to put a new program in place, which will be unveiled on November 8.

But I will reiterate: It’s nice to finally see the opposition take something more than just the city of Toronto politicians act to this floor so that we can actually start talking about the important issues of the day.

Energy rates

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Minister, when I went door to door in my riding, one of the biggest concerns that I heard was the issue of skyrocketing hydro rates. The fact that people were forced to choose between heating and eating is a decision that no family or fixed-income senior should ever have to make.

I’m sure members on both sides of this House are keenly aware that for far too long, the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, when it came to the well-being of people in this province, especially when it came to energy poverty—there were municipalities that were forced to open up heat banks in the dead of winter, because no one could afford Ontario’s hydro rates—the highest rates, I might say, in North America.

Minister, in light of this proposed new legislation that I’m looking forward to you bringing forward later today, can you please tell us how this program intends to lower the cost of heating for people across this great province?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to thank the member from Sarnia–Lambton for a great question. I know the member from Sarnia–Lambton has long advocated in this Legislature to expand natural gas right across rural and remote communities in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, one of our five priorities as a government for the people is lowering hydro bills for the people of this province, and that is exactly why we will achieve this through the Access to Natural Gas Act. Our proposed legislation will enable the private sector to work with local municipal partners to expand access to reliable, cost-effective and clean natural gas for rural, northern and First Nations communities at no cost to the taxpayer. This means that 78 communities and 33,000 households will have the ability to access critical energy infrastructure in our great province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Minister of Infrastructure: That’s great news, Minister, and I’m looking forward to the legislation later today. Following through on this new legislative commitment truly represents our government for the people’s commitment to making promises and actually keeping them, a concept that is foreign to the former Liberal government. The expansion to 78 communities and more in rural and northern Ontario will greatly assist in providing much-needed energy and financial relief, as well as enabling our First Nations communities to access cleaner and cheaper energy options.

Minister, can you tell us how much money each household expects to save with this new legislation when it’s passed?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Again to the member for Sarnia–Lambton, thanks for that question.

Mr. Speaker, our government understands that people are facing extremely high energy bills, especially if they have to depend on electricity, oil or propane to heat their homes. Having access to natural gas makes life more affordable and puts more money back in people’s pockets. Estimates suggest that by switching to natural gas, residential customers and families can save between $800 and $2,500 per year. This new initiative, in conjunction with our government’s commitment to scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax, will help put more money in the pockets of families and help provide them with much-needed financial relief.

Our government is committed to the expansion of natural gas infrastructure and services in our province, unlike the previous Liberal government, who not only banned private-sector participation in expanding natural gas, but also tried to ban natural gas altogeth