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

March 26, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-26 (PDF)

L061 - Thu 26 Mar 2015 / Jeu 26 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 26 March 2015 Jeudi 26 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Social Assistance Management System

Privatization of public assets

Education funding

Government’s agenda

By-election in Sudbury

Senior citizens

Health care funding

Social assistance

Sexual violence and harassment

Pesticides

LGBT conversion therapy

Hydro rates

Air ambulance service

Natural gas extraction

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Hospital funding

Book publishing industry

PulsePoint

4-H

London Youth Advisory Council

Epilepsy

Kawartha Downs

Fort York Food Bank

Cuisine in western Mississauga

Private members’ public business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Motions

Committee sittings

Order of business

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

La Francophonie

Ontario Volunteer Service Awards

La Francophonie

Ontario Volunteer Service Awards

Ontario Volunteer Service Awards

La Francophonie

Petitions

Trespassing

Hospital funding

Student safety

Diagnostic services

Legal aid

Health care

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Taxation

Home care

Water fluoridation

Trespassing

Private Members’ Public Business

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

Transparent and Accountable Health Care Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le financement transparent et responsable des soins de santé

Natural Gas Superhighway Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’autoroute du gaz naturel

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

Transparent and Accountable Health Care Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le financement transparent et responsable des soins de santé

Natural Gas Superhighway Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’autoroute du gaz naturel

Orders of the Day

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr. Murray moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’m pleased to bring forward second reading of Bill 66, the new proposed Great Lakes Protection Act. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, and I want to start by thanking her for her leadership and her hard work on this file. Mr. Speaker, you may know that the member is also a teacher and an educator—quite well respected in that profession—and a big part of this piece of legislation is education and engagement. So we have benefited greatly by her expertise in that area and by her particular concern for young people, because this is really a legacy project for our children.

This has been a work of some considerable effort. It is a rather unique piece of legislation, because this is not a piece of legislation focused just on enabling the government of Ontario, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to protect the Great Lakes and their watershed. It is actually a piece of legislation that will enable a whole array of civil society and community organizations.

This is something that municipal governments on the Great Lakes have been wanting for a long time. It enables their efforts to develop tourism and protect water quality. It works with both our source water protection committees and our conservation authorities, which play critical roles in protecting the watershed and our source water supply. We are very aware of that, after events like Gogama.

Whether it’s tanker cars that are leaking or catching on fire, whether it’s the problems we saw with blue-green algae in Lake Erie last summer that actually shut down the water system in the city of Toledo, Ohio, for several days—even boiling water does not get that out—we know that for municipal governments and for municipal utilities, and for our source water protection groups and our conservation authorities, this is a critically important issue.

It’s also important to farmers. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Education, and the members for Newmarket–Aurora and Durham and I were with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, listening, just moments ago, enjoying a great breakfast with them and getting back in touch with a very important community of folks and a very important part of our economy, Mr. Speaker.

The OFA raised four issues with us. I’m happy to say two of them were environmental issues, but one of the issues that they raised was the Great Lakes Protection Act. Mr. McCabe, the president of the OFA, talked quite eloquently about the incredible responsibilities that farmers feel towards protecting the lake, and the decisions and complexity that adds to farm managers to both be good stewards of their land, to provide a secure, nutritious, healthful supply of food to all of us—which we often, sadly, take for granted these days, many of us who are city folk—and also the importance of exports.

But he spent a long time talking about the importance of our water, our water supply, the quality of lake water, how interdependent farmers are for clean drinking water, why they need clean water and their role in protecting it. So this will bring our farmers, our farm communities, and agricultural and producer organizations into the discussion about it.

One of the things we’re also very proud of is that this was worked on very well with First Nations communities. We are in the traditional lands of many First Nations. The council of Ontario chiefs and others have recently put out a series of papers on the role of First Nations and water stewardship.

We worked very closely with them to ensure that, in our bilateral agreements with the federal government around the Great Lakes and in this legislation, we well recognize the millennia of great leadership and stewardship by First Nations and we build that role of traditional knowledge about our lakes—folks who have been observing our lakes and using our lakes and protecting our lakes for generations, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a moment—because I know my parliamentary assistant is going to talk a lot about what’s in the act, I’m not going to go into that at great length. This is really her role, and the member will be stewarding this, thankfully, through the committee process. And we look forward to her engagement with her colleagues in the House as this goes through committee. I’m going to ask all members to please work very closely with the member from Brampton-Springdale-Mississauga South in that effort. We have—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Did I screw it up? No it’s not okay.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What? What was that?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Pardon me? I think I got the member’s constituency wrong.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Mississauga–Brampton South.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mississauga–Brampton South. My apologies.

Hon. Liz Sandals: You said “Springdale” where you should have said “South.” You got two out of three.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I got two out of three, says the Minister of Education. I think two out of three, if I remember, is a C grade.

Hon. Michael Chan: Passing grade: 66%. You’re still okay.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: That was usually a week’s grounding if I came home with Cs on my report card.

Hon. Michael Chan: B minus; how about that?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: B minus. The member from Markham has just given me a lift.

So what are some of the challenges that we’re trying to deal with? We’re trying to deal with invasive species. That includes everything from zebra mussels, which have dramatically changed the character of the lake. The turbidity that was in our waters, the cloudiness, is gone, which, if you’re a diver like me, might be an exciting thing, but it’s not a great thing for the lake and it has changed the character of the waters. Asian carp are at the gate of our lakes, and that’s a critical, critical issue.

We have grasses growing on our beaches that are destroying the biodiversity and natural habitats of our beaches, which are critical to our pollinators, and diminishing the enjoyment that Ontarians have of the Great Lakes waterfront. I know that my critic, the member for Huron–Bruce—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You got that right.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I got that one right.

The member for Huron–Bruce has raised the issue about the invasive species that are affecting the grasses and that, and I credit her for it. This is one of those non-partisan issues that I think—I hope—we can work on, because invasive species, whether they’re fauna or flora, are very, very challenging for us. We, as Ontarians, share—hopefully, we can be Ontarians before we’re partisans more often than not. This is something that I think all members of this House would like to see as a legacy, and this is a good vehicle, after it’s passed, for MPPs, local mayors, community leaders and businesses.

This is important to our outfitters, to tourism, to fishing guides, to hunting, to our anglers. This is important to a whole bunch of urban, rural and suburban folk who have the great privilege of living on the most beautiful and largest freshwater supply in the world.

We’re also affected by carbon dioxide emissions. We often talk about them in terms of climate change, but there is a less talked about but, I think many people would say, equally challenging problem with the high level of carbon dioxide emissions that this government—we hope with the co-operation of the parties opposite—is trying to bring down. We’re very proud, as a government, that we are 6% under our 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels. We just met, and hopefully will exceed, our 2014 targets and are now working very hard with new initiatives to get to our 2015 targets.

One of the reasons that we’re bringing carbon dioxide down, and why that links to the Great Lakes Protection Act, and why this act is so important in that family of legislation—our Invasive Species Act, the Great Lakes Protection Act and the work we’ve done on climate change and green energy—is because carbon dioxide is being absorbed into our lakes and oceans, and it’s causing acidification.

There’s something that we don’t see but will certainly notice when they’re gone—they’re little creatures called daphnia. They’re a phytoplankton. You don’t often think of creatures that small as crustaceans—as having shells—but they do. Daphnia are the very foundation—if you’re an angler or a fisher or an outfitter, you’ll know a lot about these things, because these creatures are the very basis of the food chain for all of our fish populations in all of our Great Lakes.

We know that we have a crisis there—a rather invisible one unless you have a microscope—because these little crustaceans can no longer form their shells. We’re already at a point where the level of acidification in the Great Lakes is interfering with—is reducing—the ability of the very base of the food supply for all the higher-order species. They’re also being impacted by microscopic invasive species of different types that do not provide the nutrition or the stable food supply.

This act requires us to better measure and record water conditions. I’ll be working very closely with our parliamentary assistants and with the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, our sister ministry which is responsible for the creatures in the lake. I am responsible for water, soil and air. Bad weather: You can blame that on me, I guess.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s all your fault.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s all my fault, says the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is close to godliness and has a ministry above all of this clutter and clatter.

But for those of us who toil in these more base ministries, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with these things. The Minister of Natural Resources is working very closely with us, and we will soon have a much clearer picture of the conditions of these micro-organisms, and we will be able to work much more effectively at intervening in the acidification of our lakes.

Then we have climate change—we talked a little bit about blue-green algae and about the horrible experiences we’ve had in Burlington. Burlington, we all know, is a pretty modern suburban community, right next door to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He would be one of the first people, as would Minister Duguid, the Minister of Infrastructure, who would tell you that we have some problems with our stormwater sewer system. We listened to engineers, and for the last 200 years, we have built our stormwater sewer systems to hundred-year flood events.

Well, we’ve had two hundred-year flood events in Burlington in the last two years. They’re now annual events. They’ve done everything from overwhelming our stormwater system to causing mass flooding in people’s basements, causing huge costs to working Ontario families who live in those communities. We’ve now lost our operating rooms twice at the Burlington hospital, a brand new hospital. That’s not the kind of place that people want to see their tax dollars going: replacing operating rooms, having to pay exorbitant insurance rates and risking not being able to be insured.

We know that part of what we’ll do with Great Lakes protection is to start working with municipalities; we’ll be working with my colleague and dear friend Ted McMeekin, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and my friend Brad Duguid, the Minister of Infrastructure, and members opposite who represent those communities, as well. This has to be a Team Ontario approach to our lakes, because no one ministry and none of us on our own can solve these problems.

We need to figure out ways to start dealing with infrastructure that is climate-change-resilient, that’s flood-resilient.

We need to look at the issues of stormwater, whether it’s the water running off our streets that is causing nutrients and pollution in our lake or whether it’s these very abrupt rain events that are now happening to farmers, whose farm practices for 100 or 200 years have been more than sufficient to keep those nutrients out of our lakes, where the change in rain patterns is now meaning even previously very, very viable farm practices that kept nutrients out of lakes are no longer working; we need to work with our farm community and municipalities, whether it’s an urban system or a rural system, to keep those nutrients out.

Most of Canada’s industry, I think about 70% of our industrial production, is along the Great Lakes right now, Mr. Speaker, so working with the industrial producers, making sure that they have economically viable businesses—but that they’re ones that live in harmony with our lakes and contribute to the net health.

We’re also losing a lot of our farmland in this area. We have all kinds of compounding problems that make lake management so difficult.

We have more substances out there than we ever had before going into our lakes—pharmaceuticals. I remember when I was chairing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a woman well known to our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, a former federal member, Pauline Browes, who many of you will remember was a federal MP from Scarborough, a dear friend of mine—a little politically misguided, but still a dear friend. I say that only humorously.

Pauline and I worked very closely together in Ottawa on trying to keep pharmaceuticals out of our lakes and out of our toilets; the kinds of things that we do with hamsters, goldfish, and pharmaceuticals are not good things to do. Please don’t flush them down the toilet, because we now have levels of pharmaceuticals that were never intended and are having some very severe consequences on fish populations and amphibians and on the health of many species which we eat. We don’t need to be taking medication when we have fish from our lakes as a by-product of that.

All of these issues are being addressed in the Great Lakes Protection Act. We are measuring, we are identifying, a host of problems—we’re doing that.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Premier Wynne and Premier Couillard have worked very closely. I worked with my colleague the Minister of the Environment from Quebec. We spent two days together during the March break. We spent a lot of time talking about the St. Lawrence River. I’m very happy to report to the House that the government of Quebec will be working with us with complementary legislation. So Quebec is now—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: They have some additional problems, because a part of the issue of climate change is that Quebec City, as you know, the capital of our sister province to the east, is very close to the ocean. What’s happening is that the saltwater/freshwater line is moving back inland, which is compromising Quebec’s water supply. They have a big challenge now with the changing climate and the changing nature of where fresh water begins and ends. So flows on the St.

Lawrence River are very, very important to our sister province in the federation, and we’re very happy to have Quebec as an ally and a collaborator on looking at the entire ecosystem of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River watersheds. I think it’s a great step forward for the protection of biodiversity that we are able to work as two federalists governments committed to seeing the benefits to the environment and to our quality of life on that issue.

I want to take a little time and just thank people. In the aftermath of Walkerton, one of the initiatives that came out was source water protection. If you’re a member just about anywhere in this province—there’s only a few parts in the north—I would highly recommend that whatever party you’re in, you meet with your source water protection folks. I think we’re now at about 14 of 21 source water protection plans approved. This is an amazing process. These are farmers, businesspeople, community activists, there are local mayors. These have been much more complex plans than we expected them to be.

It’s interesting—we were talking about Gogama the other day, and I know many members in all parties who represent that area. Do you know that we did not have anything for oil spills or rails in the source water protection plan? And when we started doing that, we went down the road and—you know, you trust local knowledge here and you think all of us know our communities really well. I think one of the things I like about the source water protection—but we’re now going back to some of those plans in partnership with those communities and now assessing rail risk to water supplies.

Because when that ice melts, we’re going to have to be out there quite aggressively looking at the fresh water and the freshwater supplies.

The member for Huron–Bruce points out, as I said earlier, when we talked about invasive species, many of these things can have significant impacts on our water supply. I think it’s good when we downplay the partisanship in here on these things that we share a passion on and tap the local knowledge of members of Parliament who bring forward ideas.

I’m looking forward to working both with the member from Huron–Bruce and the member for Toronto–Danforth, who is my critic in the third party and who I also want to compliment as well, because Mr. Tabuns, the member from Toronto–Danforth, has a long and very well-respected record as an environmental activist. I know the member for Huron–Bruce has deep roots in the farm community and in the concerns of rural communities, and she has already been outspoken, and very credibly so, on these issues.

I’m hoping that the three of us can work with my parliamentary assistant, again, the member from Mississauga–Brampton South—I don’t want to mess that up—on this issue. I’m actually very blessed, Mr. Speaker: I only have one grandchild but have I two parliamentary assistants, who are like my family. They seem to like me a lot better than my kids and my grandkid.

The member from Sudbury, as well, is particularly interested in this. Sudbury has had issues with their water supply, with blue-green algae. Fortunately, it didn’t go toxic. I know, from having the benefit of having a team of the three of us at the ministry, I get some pretty interesting perspectives from both suburban and northern and rural Ontario on that, and I think you’ll see, as this bill goes forward, that thoughtfulness brought to bear.

I’m going to try and leave—are you okay if you have 40 minutes? Can you do 40 minutes?

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You can do anything. You’re a teacher. I’m going to wrap up in a minute, Speaker.

I just want to say, I want to thank all of the Ontarians—rural, urban, suburban, from all walks of life—who took a lead in this. I want to thank ministers past, Minister Wilkinson, Minister Gerretsen, Minister Bradley—all who had a hand in this.

I’m hoping this is three times the charm. This is the third time we have discussed this bill. I think a lot of people who have put so much time into this over the years outside of government, who were volunteers and who see their fingerprints on this bill and rightly lay claim to its authorship, would be quite happy and I think would feel that their time was respected and their energy was respected if we could pass this bill.

Again, I want to thank the member for Huron–Bruce in advance, I’m looking forward to her comments, and the member for Toronto–Danforth. I think this is a great piece of legislation that many people in all our communities worked on, friends of ours, so that we can get this through and we can make it a better bill through the committee process. I look forward to the end.

I will now turn it over to that most remarkable of teachers, my parliamentary assistant. Thank you and God bless.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It’s an honour to join Mr. Murray in supporting the government’s proposed Great Lakes Protection Act. Mr. Murray is working very hard, day in and day out—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would just like to remind the member we refer to titles and not names.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Okay. My minister, the Minister of the Environment, is working very hard, day in, day out, so that he can leave a legacy of clean air and clean water for generations to come.

As we all know, the Great Lakes are an essential part of our heritage. They’re also indispensable to our future. As the Minister of the Environment said in his statement, this is a unique piece of legislation. Yes, this is a unique piece of legislation. The question arises, why is this unique and important piece of legislation necessary?

The Great Lakes are truly a global treasure. More than 13 million people in the province of Ontario rely on the Great Lakes in one way or another, for such things as drinking water, food, electricity, employment and enjoyment. Healthy Great Lakes are vital to the success of our province. In fact, the Great Lakes regional economy is the fourth-largest in the world.

The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world’s fresh surface water and contribute billions of dollars every year to our economy through agriculture, shipping, clean hydro power, fisheries and tourism, to name a few. Fortunately, this government has made water protection and the protection of our aquatic ecosystems a top priority.

As we heard from our minister, the proposed act, if passed, would help to ensure our Great Lakes are restored, protected and made more resilient to the effects of climate change here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the memories of the December 2013 ice storm are still fresh in our minds, when thick ice knocked down trees and electricity cables and made our roads impassable. People were without electricity and without food for days and days. This is how climate change is impacting our lives.

We have seen it this past winter. I have heard people saying in the greater Toronto area that they have never seen that cold a winter, with minus 30, minus 37, minus 40 degrees consecutively for two months. This is all as a result of climate change.

We can see the impact of climate change in Ontario even today, as severe weather phenomena become more common, such as heavy downpours, which are now twice as common as they were a century ago. Rainfall and snowfall events are more extreme. Flooding and droughts are more common.

The proposed act also builds on actions we are taking to reduce harmful algal blooms, promote environmental stewardship and help local communities and partners to take action.

Ontario, as an ecosystem—a system that includes its people—is dominated by the Great Lakes and the rivers and water systems that feed them. The proposed Great Lakes Protection Act is an important piece of legislation that will focus solely on our largest source of fresh water and home to thousands of fish and wildlife species.

The Minister of the Environment outlined the challenges and pressures facing the Great Lakes and the types of problems we need to address. We work with many dedicated partners across the province who have told us how important this proposed act would be for the health of our Great Lakes. These partners have important environmental concerns, such as protecting valuable wetlands around the lakes and restoring natural shorelines.

But they also recognize that a healthy economy requires a healthy environment. Without the Great Lakes, Ontario simply would not be the great province that it is today. Almost 75% of Canada’s manufacturing, along with 80% of Ontario’s power generation and 95% of our agricultural lands, depends on the Great Lakes. Throughout Ontario, and in my own community of Mississauga–Brampton South, a centre of manufacturing and population growth, the importance of this essential relationship may not be widely enough understood.

This government intends to work with all of our Great Lakes partners when it comes to doing what needs to be done. One important feature of the proposed act is the formation of the Great Lakes Guardians’ Council. It would be a forum for collaboration and co-operation, and a place for sharing knowledge and resources. The council’s members would include provincial ministers that have responsibilities related to the Great Lakes. It would also include, as our minister said, municipal representatives and partners from First Nations and Métis communities.

Other invited contributors would include partners from environmental groups, industry, farmers, recreation and tourism, and the science community.

This sort of collaboration would allow the Ontario government or other public bodies, such as municipalities or conservation authorities, to develop and implement a plan to address priority issues in a specific location.

The council is also empowered by the proposed legislation to discuss targets and developing local and/or regional initiatives to support the people who want to restore and protect their corner of the Great Lakes.

The council could have input into implementing inter-jurisdictional agreements seeking to protect the lakes, such as the recently signed Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that was strengthened in 2012 by the governments of Canada and the US. In amending the agreement, Canada and the US addressed the spread of invasive species and the loss of habitat and indigenous species within the Great Lakes.

Both of these new agreements outline commitments for considering climate change impacts on the Great Lakes, which is also a very real and important aspect of Bill 66. Commitments that Ontario made under the new Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health will support provincial Great Lakes goals and targets, and Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy.

The proposed act would advance the implementation of existing agreements, enable the province to take action quickly in acute situations, and focus on preventing conditions in the Great Lakes from deteriorating.

In addition, the proposed act requires the regular review, reporting on and maintenance of Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy. The strategy is the road map that sets out our vision, goals and priorities to help restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes. The strategy focuses government resources across ministries, and benefits from the ideas and advice of other government and non-government partners.

Regular reviews of the strategy, as this act would require, would allow us to respond to emerging issues and new science and establish new milestones on our way to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.

Good science, research and monitoring partnerships will also help support the Great Lakes work by providing the knowledge and data to help identify issues, set priorities, establish Great Lakes targets, and guide effective restoration and protection initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Environment said, First Nations and Métis communities that have a historic relationship with the Great Lakes may wish to contribute traditional ecological knowledge for the purposes of assisting in actions done under this proposed act. It’s very, very important that we must take action—if we don’t take action now, then when?

We want all Ontarians to renew their own connection to our Great Lakes. Together, we can help to ensure clean, healthy and resilient Great Lakes.

In closing, I would encourage all members of this House to support the vision of healthy Great Lakes for a stronger Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to rise today to share comments on the opening comments on Bill 66. Thank you, Minister, for your comments, and to the PA; I appreciate it.

One thing that stuck with me, that I feel I have to reflect upon, is how the minister talked of the importance of trying to work together and downplay partisanship. He may not even know this happened, but I feel I need this opportunity to demonstrate it—and I really hope he encourages his partners, in terms of his PAs, as well as his staff, to walk that talk as well—because on March 11 there was a Minister’s Award for Environmental Excellence given in my riding, in the town where my constituency office is. The award was given to Murray and Wilma Scott.

Their farm, literally, is two concessions south of where I grew up. I grew up knowing the Scott family very well; I hung out with their twin daughters; Murray served on the council my mom was clerk-treasurer-administrator for, for 35 years. I was really, really disappointed that I did not know about the award, nor did I receive an invitation to be there when it was somebody from home. Murray was my 4-H Calf Club leader for the entire time I was involved in 4-H. I found it very, very disappointing.

I would just like to use this moment to share with the minister that I do want to work together on this, but I need to see it going both ways. The environment is very, very important. I would be remiss if I didn’t give a shout-out to what Wilma and Murray were recognized for. It’s an amazing initiative—a farmer initiative—whereby they built berms, they developed a new channel, a new wetlands, on their farm. It’s just indicative of how Ontario farmers across this province are good environmental stewards, and they want to do right.

I thank you for this opportunity to share this message.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to add some comments to the debate and to second reading of Bill 66. I listened intently to the minister; I hope he could tell that I was interested in what he was saying and appreciated some of his comments. He hit on the more pressing, poignant issues that I think our communities around the Great Lakes basin face, particularly around invasive species.

Minister, Bythotrephes longimanus, the spiny water flea, is invading, certainly, our Great Lakes, but it is a real problem for commercial and sport fishing in Lake Erie. It’s something we definitely have to do.

We support the intent of the bill; it is an incarnation of a previous bill. We see it as setting some—it’s enabling legislation, but it sets targets. It’s a plan to set a plan, which is not necessarily a plan, but not something we can necessarily disagree with, but we would like to see some hard targets. We’d like to see some initiatives that, I think, the state of Ohio has even recently taken to address algal blooms.

We know that they’ve suffered—and the minister referenced Toledo, Ohio, where my brother lives, where there was a period of time where they couldn’t drink their water in the municipal system in Toledo, last year, I believe. The Republican-led chamber, the Ohio Senate, and I believe the House has just passed a bill, Bill 1, from the Senate, which will prohibit farms from fertilizing fields when fields are frozen or saturated or if weather calls for rain. This is something that’s really proactive, something that they’re addressing head-on.

My hope is that this legislation gives the ministry and the minister the ability to set those types of regulations into force and to address those issues head-on. We certainly do need to study them but we most definitely need action on the most pressing issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: On the way in this morning, there was an old Elvis song on the radio. It kind of caught my attention. I was thinking of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change as well as my old friend Elvis. Elvis famously said, “You don’t know what you’ve got until you lose it. You gave me all your love, but I abused it. And now I’m sorry for the things I didn’t say”—and you could add “or do”—to protect the Great Lakes, the greatest freshwater system in the world.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Where’s Elvis when we need him?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: That’s right. He’d be 84 now if he were still out there somewhere.

We have about one fifth of the entire world’s freshwater supply. It has the potential to continue to be clean and beautiful and bountiful and fresh and drinkable. It continues to have the potential to be the key ingredient, the key puzzle piece, to strategic, keen and green economic growth. We don’t want to lose that or abuse it. We want to respect it and nurture it and make sure that we do everything we can do to protect it.

The United Nations, about two weeks ago, came out with a report which talked about the water shortage worldwide. About one fifth of the world right now does not have adequate access to potable, drinkable, water. The UN predicts that, within 20 years, that will be half the world and that the world will be going literally to war over water. I’ve spent time in the Middle East; I know how that has worked out historically there. So we need to take care of it.

This act is a great step, and I support it. I hope all members of the Legislative Assembly in their cumulative wisdom will—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Question and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very happy to rise today to speak on this very important bill. It’s funny, because as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing just said, I was thinking, “You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone,” and he said something very similar.

Last week I was over in Taiwan. We really don’t appreciate, I think, what we have here. We live in probably the best country in the world in terms of freshwater supply, in terms of available land, even in terms of clean air—it was quite smoggy over there near China—and in terms of natural resources: minerals, natural gas, and oil.

I hope that we’re not going to be going to war over water, but maybe we have to consider that when we’re training our troops: what could be lying ahead in terms of not just fighting overseas but also protecting what we have on our own land. We need to protect it by keeping the water clean, and we need to protect it in terms of not being attacked for our water supply in future generations.

I love to go up to lakes. I think that a lot of people from Toronto like to spend time on our many lakes. My dad is up just north of Peterborough. I don’t recall as a kid having to put on water shoes to protect our feet from zebra mussels, but soon after he moved in, we learned, about 15 years ago, that you do have to wear water shoes because of the zebra mussels on all the rocks. They’re nasty little creatures. But when the carp, I believe it was, were killed because of a bacterial infection in the lakes, we noticed that the zebra mussels were gone.

I think that that really teaches us a little bit about the cycle and that everything we do affects so many other things. That’s what we have to be cognizant of.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): We now have two minutes for the minister’s response.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much. I just want to address a couple of issues.

I was concerned about some of the comments by my friend from Huron–Bruce. I apologize. We invite all MPPs—we had a reception here for those. The Scott family wasn’t able to come for the reception. There were MPPs there, and they usually wait until the folks confirm. I didn’t realize that was the ministry policy. I don’t think it makes sense, so my apologies, and we’ll change that.

But we should find a proper place and time to present it formally to Wilma and Murray—great folks—and I would love to do that with you. I wasn’t even aware of it until after, so that’s a bureaucratic process which you and I can change, because I share your concern. It certainly was not a partisan slight.

To my friend from Windsor-Essex: Thank you very much. We share that concern. I think the Ohio legislation is very complementary. We’re enabling some of it in our structure, through municipalities, because our things are a little different. We’re enabling that, and I think we can work to get that.

To my favourite Elvis fan, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Thank you very much for that wonderful display of support for the bill.

To my parliamentary assistant: As always, thanks very much.

That gives me about 52 seconds.

I just want to be clear: I don’t want to leave people with the impression that we were co-drafting legislation with Quebec. That’s not actually what we’re doing. We actually worked with Quebec on the input. We’ve been reviewing it, and we’re working on our implementation plans with them down the St. Lawrence River.

I just got one of those panic notes you get from political staff sometimes, saying, “Minister, I hope you didn’t mean to say something you didn’t mean to say.” We all have political staff who start conversations by saying things like, “What the minister meant to say was,” so I will correct my record right there, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very exciting opportunity. My friend from Windsor-Essex talked about the things that we’re doing now with microbeads, which is something that has now caught the imagination of both our parties.

I think there’s a huge opportunity to advance, because I don’t think this is the last word in Great Lakes protection. I think this is the beginning of what will hopefully be many efforts in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m happy to have the opportunity to address the House today with regard to Bill 6, Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015.

I just want to revisit the purpose of Bill 66, which is:

“(

a) to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin; and

“(

b) to create opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.”

I’m curious to know, Speaker, in this House, how many members know the total number of ridings that are affected by the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Forty.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s all but four. Yes, the member from Essex is very, very close—no, you said 40. All but four ridings are affected by the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, so it should be of interest to us all in this House.

Before I get started, I thought it was very timely that in Better Farming magazine, March 2015, there’s a significant article: “An Ontario Phosphorus Reduction Strategy”—“Farm organizations seek a ‘farmer-driven, science-based blueprint.’”

I want to share the call-out at the start of this article, because it puts everything in perspective.

I might say, just before I share the call-out, Speaker, that a number of conservation and environmental initiatives mentioned in this

article actually come from my great riding of Huron–Bruce.

The call-out reads as such: “With the Ontario government just beginning to develop its approach and many questions unanswered, regulation is the elephant in the room for the farming community. If it comes, says one farmer, ’it had better be based on good science.’”

Speaker, that’s what I really want to lay down as the premise of my one-hour leadoff. Ideology does not lead to good policy. We have to make sure that what we’re doing is not redundant and what we’re doing is feasible, workable and embraced by the community.

With that, I would like to continue on with some very specific comments.

It goes without saying that the PC Party of Ontario is supportive of improving and protecting the environment and our Great Lakes ecosystems. Bill 66 has raised some serious questions with regard to the duplication of governance, the absence of funding, the passing reference to consideration of economic or social impacts, the appointment of guardians’ councils with the power to set fees and the potential for further erosion in the power of local planning authorities.

The protection of our province’s natural heritage is important to all Ontarians, and the Great Lakes are an integral economic driver for tourism, transportation, agriculture and fishing industries. They provide fresh water for communities, recreational opportunities and habitat for wildlife.

For many lakeshore communities, like I have in my riding of Huron–Bruce, the Great Lakes are also an important part of their historical and cultural heritage. Protecting the health and vibrancy of the Great Lakes is essential for stimulating economic development, providing jobs and ensuring continued prosperity for lakeshore communities. It is our duty, Speaker, to restore and preserve these resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations.

As I said earlier, my riding of Huron–Bruce is blessed to border the shoreline of Lake Huron, and the lake plays a crucial role in the day-to-day life of residents. The shoreline communities are a beehive of activity during the warmer months, and they take a great deal of pride—people who live on the shoreline, that is—in welcoming visitors to their beaches and establishments.

Local municipal councils are keenly aware of their responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, as local residents are proactive in protecting and enhancing the beaches, harbours and lakeshore region.

Generations of Ontarians—and I’m sure everyone sitting in the House today can appreciate or know of or have enjoyed growing up spending vacation time on the shores—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can I ask those who are having conversations to kind of lower the tone?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate that, Speaker

What I want to say is that Ontarians across this province know people or have experienced growing up spending vacation time themselves on the shores of our Great Lakes. I imagine many people here today, as I said, have fond memories.

I, myself, have been very, very fortunate that when we went to the beach, we went to Bruce Beach. It’s just south of Kincardine. My aunt and uncle always welcomed all of us in my family to use their beach in front of their cottage.

There’s so much history. There are so many connections and families that come together in the spirit of their beach community. Everyone—the farmers—the farmland leading into the shoreline—the towns and, as I said, municipal councils—they all want to work together to do what’s right to protect our Great Lakes, because not only do they have natural beauty, but there are fish habitats and the tourism industry.

When I talk about fish habitats—if I can find it quickly—I just want to note that there are so many initiatives in my riding to protect what we’ve come to enjoy in our Great Lakes. Just this past Saturday, I attended a ceremony hosted by the Kincardine and District Chamber of Commerce. They gave out their 2015 Community Achievement Awards.

In the environmental category, which was presented to a “business, organization or individual that is guided by a sense of responsibility and respect for the environment, which manifests it through initiatives designed to preserve, conserve or improve the local environment,” I’m really pleased to say that the Kincardine Fish Hatchery was the recipient of the award this year.

I share that with you, because one of the things that Lake Huron offers to so many people is wonderful fishing. This past year, I participated in the local chinook chantry. While I caught trout, a colleague of mine from the area caught a beautiful 12-pound chinook. I can tell the difference now between a chinook and a coho. It was a very good day and time well spent.

Fish habitats: Our local communities are working so hard to ensure that people have fishing to enjoy on our Great Lakes. We have to do and be cognizant of so much in order to maintain the health of our lakeshores and our ecological systems in the waters.

I just want to lay it down right now and get the elephant out of the room: Protecting our Great Lakes, especially given the documentary that was debuted on TVO last night called Big Wind—we have to agree in this House today that part of protecting the Great Lakes should include not putting industrial wind turbines in the water.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I knew that was coming.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, it has to be. If we’re dedicated to protecting our Great Lakes, we have to keep the industrial wind turbines out of them. We don’t know. We don’t have the local freshwater science to substantiate the pros and cons, so let’s just stay away from it, especially when, here in Ontario, we don’t need any energy, as we continue to pay jurisdictions to take our surplus off our hands. With that said and parked—and it was an important message to say—we cannot have industrial wind turbines in our water.

The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Innovation certainly would echo that, as he did ahead of the 2011 election. I’m sure, as all three caucuses in this House, we will agree to maintain that promise to protect our Great Lakes.

In saying that, there are other challenges to our Great Lakes, just not the threat of industrial wind turbines. Other challenges facing the Great Lakes that are crucial to be identified and addressed are the direct resources to front-line programs to address problems, such as algal blooms; invasive species like Asian carp and phragmites; agricultural runoff; chemical contamination; and sewage overflows. Targets and remedial measures must be based on expert science advice.

The government should work with the First Nations and Métis communities, to understand their perspective and how traditional ecological knowledge can help identify and address challenges. I appreciate the fact that the minister actually said earlier today that it is a priority to engage with First Nations and Métis, and I thank him for that.

I would also like to revisit the Premier’s opening statement at ROMA about the value of a provincial government applying a rural lens on its decision-making, and challenges created when the lens is overlooked.

Speaker, I want to share with you that the rural lens is very important, and I’ll be addressing it later in my comments, and I’m thrilled that ROMA has adopted the rural lens. A driver behind the rural lens is a professor from the University of Guelph, Wayne Caldwell. He was a planner at the county of Huron as well, so he has vast experience in understanding the impact of legislation on rural communities and urban communities.

I hope the Premier stands tall to her commitment that the rural lens is very important, because during her speech at ROMA, the Premier acknowledged that the success of Ontario’s agri-food sector and that of the province are inseparable, and that reducing regulation needs to be an ongoing effort. I’ll repeat that: The Premier, during ROMA, said specifically that the success of Ontario’s agri-food sector and that of the province are inseparable, and that reducing regulation needs to be an ongoing effort.

That’s where I raise a flag, Speaker, because I’m not sure whether Bill 66 will do that. Bill 66 has raised concerns with Ontario agricultural stakeholders, much like I said, in the March issue of Better Farming. It’s the front cover story.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Great stories.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: There are great stories in there. That’s right, Minister.

We’re concerned that Bill 66 could conflict with or override other legislation that farmers must work under, like the Nutrient Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and the Environmental Protection Act, as well as local municipal bylaws.

Ontario farmers have played a significant role in environmental stewardship programs since 2005, and agricultural leaders are calling for the government to ensure that Bill 66 does not result in potential conflicts, leading to confusion, delay and more restrictive regulations governing agricultural operating practices.

I heard that very same concern expressed just this past week at the AGM for Grain Farmers of Ontario, but we’ll touch on that a little bit later.

Agriculture is a major economic driver, not only in my riding of Huron–Bruce but right across this province. As Bill 66 has the power to supersede nutrient management and other legislation pertaining to agriculture, we need to proceed carefully and work with stakeholders to balance environmental concerns with economic ones.

One nutrient that has a significant impact on the health of the Great Lakes is phosphorus. We all know that. Some areas of the Great Lakes have more phosphorus than they should, and intervention is indeed required to reduce phosphorus to more appropriate levels. Excessive levels of phosphorus contribute, as you may guess, to algal growth and certain types of blue-green algae, and other species may produce toxins that are harmful to both humans and wildlife. We all want to do our

part in correcting this, and ongoing efforts to upgrade municipal waste water treatment plants and limit phosphorus levels have been successful in reducing phosphorus levels, particularly in Lakes Ontario and Huron.

The Nutrient Management Act has done a good job of dealing with phosphorus coming from farms, but we also need to recognize that a considerable portion of the pollution originates in the United States. I ask the minister this: Can the Liberal government realistically set targets for transboundary pollution issues? We know where the greatest source of phosphorus is coming from in Lake Erie. So I repeat that question: Can the Liberal government realistically set targets for transboundary pollution issues?

A retired forester and MNR employee recently contacted my office with some excellent suggestions on environmental stewardship, and I feel it would be worthwhile to share them with you today. He advised that the government should continue to work with the agricultural sector to address erosion and runoff by encouraging practices like Murray and Wilma Scott have embraced, like grassed waterways, buffer strips of grass and trees, plowdown crops, contour plowing, restricting livestock access to water and reduced tillage.

Speaker, again I suggest to you that we are very, very fortunate that a lot of these initiatives have been voluntarily embraced because farmers above all else want to be good stewards of our land.

This former employee of MNR also recommended protecting wetlands, which filter water and contribute to improved water quality. He pointed out that forests are only protected if they are provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest, although the province allows municipalities to designate forest as significant for planning purposes. He identified toxic sewage sludge, which is removed from waste water and spread on agricultural lands, as a source of Great Lakes pollution that should be addressed as well.

Here in this House, as legislators, we have discussed the threat aquatic invasive species pose to biodiversity in the Great Lakes. My colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk has warned us of the damage that Asian carp could do if allowed to enter the waterways. We’ve also described, on both sides of the House and including the third party, how phragmites are spreading along the shoreline and choking out wetlands.

He also pointed out—my colleague from Haldimand, that is—that these invasive species have not only posed an ecological threat, they also have an estimated $7.5-billion impact on forestry and farming, and that impact is in the negative sense.

In Huron–Bruce, a group of concerned citizens approached authorities for assistance with phragmites, which are growing out of control along our shoreline. Where cottages and homeowners once had a lovely beach, there are only phragmites, and the remaining beach was unable and unsafe to be walked on due to phragmite roots. Everybody is doing their part. I’ve talked to people who, when phragmites come in to seed, they painstakingly cut off the heads of the phragmite and very carefully drop them into little baggies so the seeds do not hit the ground.

Everyone in my riding is cognizant of the negative impact of phragmites. In my riding, residents have approached local municipal councils and officials, and together they began the long and difficult task of having the problem assessed. Through filling out of the paperwork, they hope that they can work toward a treatment that will address this issue. But unfortunately, this is a time-consuming and trying procedure that it should not have been. Phragmites are a recognized threat and spread quickly, so it should not be a convoluted procedure to report and control them.

In terms of improving Bill 66, that is an area in terms of amendments that our party is going to be addressing. I would also like to suggest that this is one area in which the government should increase engagement with municipal officials and local conservation authorities and streamline the remediation process.

Another ongoing threat to the Great Lakes has been the invasion of zebra mussels. My colleague and friend from Thornhill very adeptly addressed the issue in the lake that she calls home with her father, and I thank her for that. Zebra mussels have led to water quality concerns and they too encourage the growth of algae.

In saying that, I want to get into more detail about some of the problems with Bill 66 in areas that we hope we can work together on to improve.

A number one issue in this bill is the duplication of governance. While recognizing the importance of a healthy and prosperous Great Lakes region, there are still elements of Bill 66 which warrant sober second thought. The PC Party has certainly been supportive of the existing framework to protect water quality and to establish meaningful partnerships with the private sector to develop new technologies to remediate areas of concern.

There have been Great Lakes governance agreements between Canada and the United States, and between the federal and provincial governments, for more than 40 years. If there was a pressing need for more legislation, I question why the Liberal government has waited so long to act. We also need to examine if the areas of concern and challenges facing the Great Lakes should be addressed under Bill 66, or could they not be better dealt with under existing agreements?

Is more legislation really needed to protect the Great Lakes? We need to be mindful of this. To my mind, the Liberals have not provided a clear explanation as to why Bill 66 is necessary when we have extensive regulatory frameworks already in place. If they cannot demonstrate areas of concern that are not being adequately addressed, then why are they proposing a comprehensive piece of legislation that may well create conflicts and confusion, burden municipalities and development with increased costs and red tape, and reduce local planning authority?

Speaker, I have to remind you again that we saw a documentary on TVO last night that saw the results of the loss of local municipal autonomy. Do we want to create another burden and another threat that further reduces local decision-making? I so hope not. Stewardship programs do not need another layer of bureaucracy; they need adequate funding, which Bill 66 does not appear to provide.

Unfortunately, the introduction of Bill 66 reminds me, as I mentioned earlier, of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. I have to ask once more if this government is again proposing far-reaching legislation simply to appease special interest groups and to create the illusion of protecting the environment. Ontario cannot afford another ill-advised policy which does nothing but download costs to municipal governments and complicate and confuse the environmental processes that we already have in place.

Given the province’s skyrocketing debt and deficit situation, one also has to consider that Bill 66 may just be another revenue tool to satisfy the finance minister and an opportunity to further download costs and to raise money through the levy of fees and penalties. Again, Ontario has a huge burden because of the last decade of Liberal mismanagement. We cannot afford another ill-advised and misplaced piece of legislation.

To continue, I would now like to outline some of the existing agreements which provide protection to the Great Lakes.

Canada and the United States have established the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Under this agreement, the US and Canadian governments have identified—I’m going to go through the whole list, because we do not want Bill 66 to provide unnecessary, redundant pieces of legislation. The US and Canadian governments, under the Great Lakes water agreement, have identified the need to:

—develop water quality and ecosystem health objectives and report progress to the public regularly;

—clean up areas of concern in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin;

—develop a comprehensive lake-wide management plan to protect and remediate near-shore waters;

—reduce toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, like mercury and PCBs;

—reduce nutrients like phosphorus that lead to the growth of algal blooms that degrade drinking water quality, impair fish spawning and adversely impact commercial and recreational fishing, swimming, tourism and the overall enjoyment of the Great Lakes;

—prevent discharges from shipping vessels, such as garbage, sewage, invasive species and other pollutants;

—stop the spread of invasive species by developing and implementing early detection and rapid response programs;

—complete the development of and begin implementing lake-wide habitat and species protection, restoration and conservation strategies within two years;

—identify contaminants in groundwater discharged into the Great Lakes;

—develop plans to protect and restore near-shore areas, the primary source of drinking water for Great Lakes communities;

—reaffirm actions necessary to restore and delist areas of concern;

—identify new toxic substances and implement pollution prevention and control strategies; and, lastly,

—develop conservation strategies to protect native species and restore habitat.

This comprehensive agreement also requires Canada and the United States to address the use of toxic substances in the basin and to develop action plans for areas of concern, which are regions that have significant environmental challenges.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has an oversight body called the International Joint Commission to oversee the development and implementation of these goals. So again, I caution: Is Bill 66 going to set up a redundant layer of bureaucracy and Liberal-friendly appointments that Ontario can’t afford at this time?

Speaker, to go back to the International Joint Commission, I would like to share with you that this particular commission oversees the remediation of 15 areas of concern by ensuring that parties have action plans in place. Ontario is responsible for addressing challenges in seven of Canada’s 10 areas of concern, including Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, Peninsula Harbour, Spanish Harbour, Wheatley Harbour, the Niagara River and the Bay of Quinte.

Over and above the International Joint Commission, Ontario is also a member of the Great Lakes Charter, an agreement signed by Ontario, Quebec and eight of the Great Lakes states in 1985 to address concerns related to water diversion in the Great Lakes basin.

The governments of Canada and Ontario also signed a draft Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health—COA—in 2014. Are we seeing a pattern here? There are already a lot of initiatives taking place. Again, I caution: Does Bill 66 just introduce another layer of redundancy that this province can’t afford?

Going back to the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health, which was founded in 2014, I want to share that the COA, as it’s known, establishes a domestic action plan to guide co-operation and the coordination of efforts to restore, protect and conserve Great Lakes water quality and ecosystem health over five years.

I’d like to point out to you, as we wind down to the break, what the COA deals with: nutrients; harmful pollutants; discharges from vessels; areas of concern; lake-wide management; aquatic invasive species; habitat and species; groundwater quality; climate change impacts; science; promoting innovation; engaging communities; engaging First Nations; and engaging Métis.

Speaker, I worry, and again I caution, that Ontario cannot afford another layer of redundant legislation that does nothing more than download more costs to Ontarians throughout this province.

At that, I think you may want me to take a break.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Keep going? Okay. Speaker, I would love to keep going because I have so much to say on this particular bill.

Let me talk about the Conservation Authorities Act. This particular act gives the government the power to regulate the development of shorelines for watershed management, and the Planning Act provides municipalities with the authority to regulate shoreline development. As well, the government has the Toxics Reduction Act and the Environmental Protection Act to deal with harmful pollutants.

As you can see, numerous pieces of legislation offer a framework for the protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Again, I question why Ontario does not simply fulfill its commitments under these existing agreements. There is no need to overlap and duplicate governance. Where is this particular gap that necessitates Bill 66? Speaker, I ask: What steps will the government take to prevent overlap and to ensure all new regulations will be coordinated with Ontario’s existing water legislation?

Bill 66 could potentially affect a number of acts; for example, the Planning Act; the Condominium Act, 1998; the Greenbelt Act, 2005; the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act; and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001. It’s very much a concern.

I come back to the title

article from Better Farming March 2015. I want to revisit the call-out that kicks off this article: “With the Ontario government just beginning to develop its approach and many questions unanswered, regulation is the elephant in the room for the farming community” and across Ontario, I might add—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Now we’ll let you end.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the chamber today two young constituents of mine, Liza Kanopatykaia and Louis Vatrt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce the family of page Demily Bello Thibodeau, with her father being Richard Thibodeau; Havana Thibodeau; Joanne Thibodeau; and also the very beautiful and young Betsabel Thibodeau.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the west members’ gallery today I believe I see Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and Keith Currie, the vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Members of the executive of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had the opportunity to meet with these wonderful folks earlier this morning. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce the zone 11 director on behalf of the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington and the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. I want to introduce our director, Eleanor Renaud, from the OFA.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to introduce a few people who are all the way from Timmins. First of all, our school board trustee and the president of the professional firefighters association, Peter Osterberg. He is here with both Bill and Caroline, his parents, who are visiting along with him.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to issue a very warm welcome to some of my constituency office staff from the riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. We have Helen Walker, Kassandra Cruciano and Farah Khan. These great team members are here at Queen’s Park and we’re going to have lunch together, which we never get to do in the constit office. We’re going to do that today.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to recognize Farhana Haji and Hanif Haji; they are in the members’ gallery. They are the parents of our page captain today, Alysa. Thank you very much for joining us.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the Legislature today are recipients of the IGNITE program funding, which supports Pan Am community outreach programs. We’ll be having a reception at 6 o’clock this evening in committee rooms 228 and 230. I invite all members to join us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to the House today Debra Pretty-Straathof, a constituent of mine and also the OFA’s zone 8 director for the counties of Arnprior, Lanark, Ottawa and Renfrew.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would also like to welcome the members of the OFA here today, specifically my director for northern Ontario, Peggy Brekveld.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to introduce Eleanor Fast, who is the mother of page Joe Fast from Ottawa South. I’d like to welcome her; she’s in the east gallery today.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to introduce Priya Pandya. She is the mom of another page captain today, Rahul. It’s great to have her here all the way from Huron–Bruce.

I have two other introductions. I’d also like to warmly welcome Heather Copeland from Grober—I worked with her in my capacity as general manager with the Ontario Dairy Goat Co-operative; she represents Grober—and a dear friend of mine, who goes way back, is also with her today coming to the House: Crystal Mackay, executive director of Farm and Food Care Ontario.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: It’s my pleasure to introduce some special guests today, they’re the family of legislative page Max Ciuffetelli-Parker, who is our page captain today. In the House today are his mother, Dr. Darlene Ciuffetelli-Parker; his father, Mr. Craig Parker; and his sister—who is a former page, as well—Madeline Ciuffetelli-Parker. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to welcome Pat Jilesen, a lamb and crop producer from Bruce county, a great volunteer and an OFA director at large—and all the members of the OFA.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait plaisir d’introduire aujourd’hui et présenter notre page, Jade Proulx, at the Legislative Assembly on behalf of Ottawa–Orléans. We’re very proud to have you with us.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear purple ribbons in recognition of epilepsy awareness day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is seeking unanimous consent to wear ribbons for an epilepsy day. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have said that the mandatory Ontario pension plan will be good for the province, yet your government has not released any evidence to support these claims. In fact, the only information you have released is an internal document warning your minister that the pension plan will cost Ontario 54,000 jobs a year.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has even said that your government, at a minimum, must conduct and publicly release an analysis of the impact of the new pension plan. So, Premier, will you include a cost-benefit analysis of the ORPP in the 2015 budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I know the associate minister is going to want to speak to this very important issue.

As the member knows, we made this commitment as a part of our budget and as a part of our platform, Mr. Speaker. It’s a fundamental part of our plan for the economy, because we know that there are many, many people in Ontario who are not able to save enough, who are worried about retirement security. We believe that it is important that government take action to make sure that they have the ability to retire in security after a life of work. I’m surprised, actually, that anyone in this House would not think that it’s a good idea for the people of Ontario to have retirement security.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Back to the Premier: Premier, you may not have evidence, but I do. The CFIB has said that over half its members will have to lay off workers—lay off workers. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has said that 44% of its members will have to reduce staff. We all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. On both sides—on both sides—I’m having difficulty hearing the question being put, so please.

Finish, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need extra comments.

Mrs. Julia Munro: We all know that it’s impossible to save for retirement if you have no job. So, Premier, will you commit to help save jobs in Ontario by walking away from the ORPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, it’s very interesting, because people who have studied this issue and who understand the way people are able to prepare for their retirement pretty much—there’s a lot of agreement among those experts that there are not enough people in this province, and in this country, quite frankly, saving for retirement.

Organizations like CARP, the organization of seniors across the country—they have no stake in this, because they’re past the point where such a pension plan would benefit them—are one of the strongest advocates for us doing this. They believe that this is an important thing.

I believe that it is responsible for us to implement what we ran on. We were very clear with the people of Ontario, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: Premier, we will lose more than just jobs if the ORPP goes through. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association found that 78% of workplaces will reduce or eliminate their existing pension plans if they are forced to take

part in the ORPP.

Premier, over the next week, the PC caucus will be laying out five key commitments we need to see from your government in order to support your budget. This is the first.

Will you commit in your 2015 budget to saving jobs and walking away from the ORPP?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I appreciate her raising the question in the House this morning, because Ontarians are concerned about their retirement. In fact, just this week, a study from RBC was released, and 34% of people have contributed to their—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t anticipate shouting people down for the sake of not hearing them.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: From that RBC study, only 39% of respondents have put away money in 2014 for retirement through their RRSP, and 30% said that they have not begun to save for their retirement. Ontarians expect their government to take action to ensure a secure retirement future. In fact, 77% of Ontarians support an increase in pension benefits.

It is for this reason that our government has put forward the implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan: so that when people retire, they can retire with dignity and have a secure savings floor in their retirement.

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Premier. Your government has caused a great deal of angst and hardship to our most vulnerable people by launching a messed-up social assistance computer system that you were warned was not ready for implementation. SAMS continues to be an unmitigated disaster.

Earlier this month, I raised concerns with problems that SAMS is going to cause with people’s tax returns and related benefits, impacting as many as 700,000 adults and children dependent on ODSP and Ontario Works. We recently found out that you were forced to shred over a half a million T5 tax forms because of errors by your supposedly improved computer system.

Premier, are you prepared to continue to assert that your government’s $240-million—and climbing—social assistance system is experiencing a mere glitch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services is going to want to have more to say on this, but we’ve acknowledged that the implementation of the improved system has posed challenges. We understand that.

We also know that SAMS, which is the system that the member opposite is talking about, is a key component of the transformation of Ontario’s social assistance program. It’s very important that we have updated technology. There have been concerns and problems. The minister has visited offices. There is front-line support for people who are going through this transition. We have worked to make sure that cheques were put in people’s hands so that they had the benefits that they were entitled to, but we need to implement a system that is going to improve service. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Why did you implement one that didn’t work?

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Premier: You suggested SAMS would be a better, more efficient system. Recently your government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers consultants to cover up your government’s incompetence over SAMS implementation and issued not one but two rounds of so-called one-time—and, I might add, unbudgeted—funding to municipalities to mitigate the ongoing cost overruns with SAMS.

Premier, can you assure us that you will not download the cost of your SAMS mess on the backs of local taxpayers and guarantee a full 100% short- and long-term reimbursement to municipalities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, this SAMS system is being implemented because it will improve service to people. There’s no question that there have been challenges—as, I would say, there were challenges when the party opposite instituted changes in terms of social assistance.

The implementation has to be improved; there’s no question about that. I’m pleased that we’ve hired a third-party adviser to advise us, to improve the system.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s as it should be. We have to make these changes, as parties before us have made changes. We have to address the challenges as they come along. It’s important that we have expert advice on how to do that, and that’s exactly what we’ve sought out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order so I can acknowledge his colleague.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Premier: I think you should talk to the front-line people and the recipients who aren’t receiving these, because it isn’t an improved system.

People on social assistance deserve stability, peace of mind and the supports they rely on. They need to know you’ll put a stop to this waste and start putting money where it belongs: into helping our 700,000 vulnerable adults and children who depend on this support.

As per my open letter—and I’m going to send you another copy here by page—Premier, I ask you again: How many more SAMS stumbles can we expect in the future, and how much will it cost the recipients and the taxpayers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to update the House on a number of the steps that we’ve been taking over the last few months to address the challenges in SAMS.

I have spent the last few months visiting many offices—both OW municipal partner offices as well as ODSP—and I have certainly seen the frustration of the caseworkers on the front line. This is why we’ve taken a number of steps. Our project team has instituted many fixes in order to make the system function much more smoothly. We’re listening to front-line staff. I actually met with a number of CUPE and OPSEU representatives yesterday. I understand the stress that they have been through, but at the end of the day, we have been extremely successful. We have now processed four successful pay runs for both ODSP and OW monthly payments, payments to 570,000 families each month—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier provide any guarantees that hydro rates will not go up as part of the Liberal plan to privatize Hydro One and local utilities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thought when the leader of the third party stood up that she was going to say how important she thought it was to give people in this province who are struggling, the lowest-income people, a break on hydro rates. I would have thought that would have been the kind of policy the NDP would support. In fact, it’s the kind of policy that has been advocated for by poverty advocates.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Everybody’s struggling under your hydro policy—everybody.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s not what this NDP is interested in.

To the question that the leader of the third party has brought forward, I’ve been very clear, and we were very clear in the election and in our budget, that we were going to have a review of assets, and that that review of assets was about investing in transportation infrastructure and transit. That is why we are doing it. At the same time, we recognize that price controls and regulation need to be very much in place and there needs to be continued ownership of those assets. All of those pieces are principles upon which we’re making our decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t think I heard the assurance I was looking for, because privatizing hydro means Ontarians are going to be paying higher hydro rates in this province. Mike Harris started down the hydro road and the Liberals are doubling down on that road.

If the Premier is so sure that privatizing Hydro One—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —is such a great deal, why won’t she provide a simple guarantee to Ontarians that hydro rates will not go up under this privatization scheme?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it’s so interesting that the member opposite is talking about an issue that, of course, is decided by the Ontario Energy Board, and that regulation that I have said must stay in place will stay in place.

But on a day when the leader of the third party has the opportunity to talk about a policy that is going to lower electricity prices for the lowest-income people in this province, she’s not interested in talking about that. She’s not interested in talking about a policy that actually is part of a poverty reduction strategy, that actually supports people with the lowest income. That’s a policy I would have thought the NDP would have been interested in.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, since 2002, hydro rates have gone up by more than 325%, and all the Premier has for Ontarians is another—another—privatization scheme. She’ll sell off our hydro companies, put them in private hands that just want to make more profit, but still somehow it’s supposed to be better for Ontarians? So I’m going to ask one more time: Are hydro bills going up under the Premier’s new, current privatization scheme?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just talk about what the Ontario Electricity Support Program will do, because I think it is very relevant. I’ve already addressed the issue of price regulation and the protections that need to be in place, whatever we do with assets. The OESP is going to provide targeted support based on household income and size, Mr. Speaker, so it’s a very strategic and surgical, I would say, benefit that will help people who are most in need.

As an example: A family of four with an income of less than $28,000 would have a combined savings of about $525 annually. That’s a significant reduction. And as I say, on top of the other programs that we have in place to protect people who are struggling with their overall costs, this new program will help the lowest-income Ontarians. That’s something that I think the NDP should be cheering.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Anybody who thinks the OEB is a price control agency is in la-la land, I’ve got to say.

My next question is to the Premier, Speaker. How many schools have been targeted for closure since the Premier introduced the 2014 budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me repeat what both the Minister of Education and I have said many times, and that is that we continue to invest in the education of the children of this province. The minister is going to be talking with school boards today, letting them know that the education funding is remaining stable and in fact in certain areas, like maintenance, increasing, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that school boards have to make decisions about delivering programs that make the most sense in their communities. I believe in the school boards’ ability to do that on a local basis. Sometimes that means consolidating schools; sometimes that means renovating one school and moving kids into a newly renovated school; sometimes it does mean closing the school; sometimes it means building a new school. Those are decisions that local school boards need to make, working with the ministry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: From 2011 until the 2014 election, at least 88 schools closed across this province, but the Premier won’t say how many more schools are being targeted for closure after the 2014 budget was first introduced. Today, school boards are learning how deep the Liberals will cut, and how much pressure they’re going to have to close even more schools. How many more schools does the Premier think should be shut down in neighbourhoods across this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would have thought that the member opposite, the leader, would have been interested in the announcement that we made this morning, that in fact school board funding will be remaining stable this year. Speaker, last year the transfers to school boards amounted to $22.5 billion. This year they’ll amount to $22.5 billion, despite the fact that enrolment is declining in Ontario, which means that there’s actually a slight per pupil increase.

But what I will say, Speaker, is that we think that it’s more important to fund children and make sure they get good programs and good supports and good resources, rather than empty seats. That’s exactly what we’re doing in this year’s funding model.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, everybody in this chamber and everybody around Ontario knows very well that a freeze is actually a cut. So the minister can talk about it all she wants, but freezing education funding is actually cutting education funding—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Start the clock, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and that means cuts to classroom support and layoffs for teachers and layoffs for education workers. The Toronto District School Board is already cutting 50 special education staff. Those are the staff who work with our most vulnerable children. Parents in the Toronto Catholic board are trying to protect their intensive special education support programs, which their children need.

Parents want the Premier to answer a simple question: Why are students being forced to pay for Liberal mistakes?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Actually, I think it’s also important for the member opposite to know that, if you look at the special education funding pot this year for schools across Ontario, you’ll find that it actually goes up slightly even though the number of students is going down.

The member knows that the enrolment in Ontario schools has been going down and down and down and down. So you really need to look at how much we’re spending per pupil. The spending per pupil has gone up 59% since 2003. The overall funding has gone up $8 billion since 2003. So I absolutely disagree with the member opposite. We are funding the schools of Ontario absolutely adequately.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Government’s agenda

Ms. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you’ve promised to protect the social programs that Ontarians need and deserve, but evidence is clearly mounting that your failed economic policies are having serious consequences on Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens. Your failed policies have forced the Toronto District School Board to cut 50 special education assistants and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario to eliminate 50 positions. But even more disturbing than that is the fact that there are over 21,000 children and adults with intellectual disabilities who are languishing on wait-lists, waiting desperately for the supports and services that they desperately need.

I have a very simple question for the Premier: Will she admit that her failed economic policies have consequences and are hurting Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a broad-ranging question, but what I will say to the member opposite is that I absolutely reject the premise of the question.

We’ve just had a conversation in this House about education funding, which is remaining stable in the face of declining enrolment and, in terms of special education, is actually going up. We’ve had a conversation in the past days about health funding, the 24,000 more nurses in the system than there were in 2003; 5,000 more doctors—and we’re going through a transition. In terms of disabilities, in terms of funding for disabilities and developmental services, the fact is there is $810 million going into that sector.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the programs that have long wait-lists, the money that is going into the system is going to reduce those wait-lists for developmental services. I already talked about special ed in education. Special education funding in schools is going up across the province overall, even though enrolment is declining.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: I asked a really simple question, but it’s one that the Premier clearly wishes to avoid. The truth is obvious: In order to be socially compassionate, you first need to be fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, good economic policy enables good social policy.

Premier, your failed economic policies are having serious consequences. Just ask the students at the Toronto District School Board, ask the young patients at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and ask the 21,000 children and adults, and their families, with intellectual disabilities why they’re not getting the programs and services that they need and deserve.

Premier, will you finally recognize that your failed economic policies are having serious consequences and seriously affecting the lives of Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the member opposite that she really can’t have it both ways. Outside of this House, in her leadership campaign—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you haven’t been able to tell by now, I’m asking for us to have a little bit of civility here. As soon as somebody stands up to answer, I hear shouting, and it’s not appropriate.

So I’ll ask the member from Nepean–Carleton to come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Me?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m obviously not in the mood for joking.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In her leadership campaign, she has promised that she will cut $1 billion by way of a tax cut from the very services that she’s talking about. The hundreds of millions of dollars that we’re putting into education, that we’re putting into health care and that we’re putting into developmental services would be gone, because she’s going to find $1 billion according to her platform.

So I would ask the member opposite to make some consistent statements about what her plan would be, because what she’s saying now does not make sense.

Interjections.

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

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Both Pat Sorbara, your deputy chief of staff—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Let me repeat again. I think they didn’t like that.

Both Pat Sorbara, your deputy chief of staff and campaign director; and Mr. Sorbara, your Liberal operative in Ottawa—

Mr. Steve Clark: Lougheed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Lougheed, I should say—had a discussion with Mr. Olivier about his—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I demand the same courtesy on both sides. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, Pat Sorbara, your deputy chief of staff; and Mr. Lougheed, the local operator in Sudbury, had direct conversations with Mr. Olivier about standing down. My question to you is, were you aware that those conversations were going to take place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I take it that the member from Timmins–James Bay has taken on the responsibility of having at least having one question about an issue that we’ve discussed on several occasions in this House. The Premier has been absolutely clear that this matter is being dealt with by way of an investigation which is done by independent authorities outside this Legislature, and we should respect that process. Speaker, the notion of procedural fairness and natural justice in our system of democracy requires that we let arm’s-length investigative bodies undertake their responsibilities.

We should not be using this Legislature to be quarterback investigators. So I urge the member opposite to respect the process, understand the notion of presumption of innocence and let the authorities complete the investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Back to the Premier: I would urge you to answer the question. This Legislature has certain rights. Those rights were given to us by the Canadian Constitution and allow members to stand in this House to ask relevant questions having to do with issues that are important to Ontarians.

Your deputy chief of staff and your Liberal operator in Sudbury continually talked to Mr. Olivier about not running and standing down. So I’m going to ask the question again: Were you aware that these conversations were going to take place—yes or no?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, we fully respect the right of the opposition to ask questions. We hope that they ask questions on issues that are important to Ontarians, like how we are giving a break to low-income Ontarians on their electricity rates or how we are making sure that we are investing in education.

Speaker, this is an investigation that is going on outside this Legislature. We have important issues to deal with as we build Ontario up. I ask the member opposite to let the authorities do their work. The Chief Electoral Officer was very clear when he said that he has not made any determination of innocence or of guilt because that is up to the prosecutors and judges to decide. We should respect his opinion. The member opposite himself has said on occasions that the Premier should not interfere in the investigation. He is absolutely right. This is exactly what she is doing.

While she’s doing this, she will continue to focus on making sure that we’re building Ontario up.

Senior citizens

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. Ontario has a proud history of having one of the most culturally and socially diverse populations in the world. It’s important to recognize that this remarkable diversity also extends to our significant and growing senior population. In fact, more than 55% of all Canadian immigrant seniors live in the province of Ontario. As well, a larger portion of our two million seniors are female, and this difference increases greatly in the oldest age groups, where over 70% of persons aged 90 or older are female.

In my own riding of Davenport, there is a sizable and very diverse older adult community, and my senior constituents represent many different cultural, ethnic and social groups. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you please provide us with details regarding the programs and services our government is investing in to support seniors from diverse communities?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you to the member from Davenport for the question.

Facing the reality of this diversity, our government long ago started to invest in a number of important programs addressing this diversity. We produce, for example, a seniors’ guide to programs and services in 16 languages. We deliver information fairs in northern and remote communities to reach our francophone and aboriginal seniors. We fund the seniors’ infoline in 30 languages—

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

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of hosting the minister in Davenport for an event which truly highlights our government’s continued commitment to serving the needs of seniors in my community and celebrating their diversity. On this occasion, seniors from the Vietnamese Association, Toronto, joined us for an impressive tai chi demonstration. With funding provided by seniors community grants, seniors learned tai chi exercises and in turn became volunteers, teaching other seniors their skills.

Another great example from my riding of an organization that was financed through the grant program was a symposium for immigrant senior women. This educational symposium brought together senior women of diverse backgrounds to participate in workshops and obtain essential resource information.

It’s clear these investments have been extremely well received in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please provide further information on how we’re supporting these seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank the member again for the question.

Let me say that the priorities of the Seniors Community Grant Program include a focus on aboriginal communities and projects embracing our cultural diversity.

Speaker, back in 2010, when we introduced and passed the Retirement Homes Act, we ensured that important provisions were put in place to protect diversity. It is now a requirement by law that retirement homes, all 700 of them, must prominently display a bill of rights which entitles the residents to have their lifestyles and choices respected, and to freely pursue their social, cultural, religious, spiritual and other interests.

We launched the groundbreaking multicultural Finding Your Way program for people with dementia, and we do that in 12 languages. On top of that, we have a very successful and helpful guide which provides seniors with information on active living, transportation and housing.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on Monday you told this House that there would be more family physicians and specialists practising in the province. Contrary to this, the Ontario Medical Association, the people who represent Ontario’s doctors, released a statement saying that your government’s imposed cuts will drive new physicians out of Ontario and hurt patient care. How can you stand in this House and say there will be increases when the opposite is true? Are you calling Ontario’s doctors liars?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Being a member of the OMA myself, I would certainly not do that. I hold the OMA and our physicians, the more than 30,000 physicians around this province, in extremely high regard. But what I will say to the member opposite is that the OMA negotiations were about one thing and one thing only: They were about physician remuneration. They were about the amount of dollars that physicians in this province earn. Historically, and certainly in the current situation, doctors in this province—as they should be—are among the highest-paid in this country, Mr. Speaker.

They’re also among the highest-talented in this country, and in North America. But this is not about care to patients. This has nothing to do with access to health care for individual Ontarians. Unfortunately, despite our umpire, retired Justice Warren Winkler, asking the OMA to accept our offer, the OMA did not. Unfortunately, we’ve had to move ahead without them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Minister, in the South West LHIN, there are over 38,000 people without a family physician. These imposed cuts on these doctors are not going to help that situation one bit whatsoever. Minister, you have failed to define what a high-needs area is and, by doing so, these new doctors will not be able to practise in a family health team throughout southwestern Ontario.

You’ve told this House, “Doctors are entitled to practise wherever they want in this province.” However, again, the OMA has said that your government has limited new graduates from practising in family health teams. Medical students are trained to work in team-based family practice models. Why won’t your government work with the front-line health care workers to find solutions to protect Ontario’s health care system? Why do you find this so difficult?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In fact, many parts of southwestern Ontario will benefit from the changes that we’re making, because we are continuing our commitment to create new family health team positions and family health team entities in those parts of the province that require them. For example, in the northern part of this province, there are roughly 40 family health teams there currently. I’d like to see more of them. In the small towns and rural parts of this province, where there are, I think, about 70 or 80 family health teams currently operating, I’d like to see more, as well.

We’re continuing to allocate positions to those parts of the province. We’re going to be able to define exactly what parts of the province we’re talking about within the next several weeks.

But, certainly, Mr. Speaker, we’ve added 5,000 physicians to this province’s health care services in the past decade. We’re continuing to add more. We’re providing opportunity, and those family doctors can and will practise in whatever part of the province they choose to.

Social assistance

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Thousands of persons with disabilities are proud to be part of the workforce, but they count on a $100 top-up each month to help pay for the costs of that work. Now the same Premier who promised to protect social assistance is cutting this crucial funding. She promised one thing and she’s doing the exact opposite, and 34,000 ODSP recipients are at risk of suffering a huge cut this October. Speaker, I want to give the Premier a chance to fix this mistake. Will she abandon her plan to eliminate the Work-Related Benefit, or will she steamroll ahead with the cuts to social assistance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, the work of my ministry is to look after those most vulnerable in our society, both those on OW and those on ODSP, and we really are looking very carefully at ways that we can assist this population. We are looking at ways to improve employment opportunities for those with disabilities, and we’ve introduced a number of measures to encourage those who are able to, in fact, seek employment.

As I think everyone in this House knows, we’ve put an earnings exemption in now, so that the first $200 worth of employment income—those individuals do keep that. Over and above the $200 they earn, 50% is kept in their hands. We are very conscious of doing everything we can to encourage these individuals to be part of our society and take

part in every aspect.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the Premier: I understand what those changes are supposed to do, but it’s actually going to work in the negative if you don’t do something to fix it. The Liberals are ignoring the real problems of some of our most vulnerable people. Cutting the Work-Related Benefit means no bus tickets to get to work. It means cutting back on food. It means scrambling to get another shift or being forced out of the workforce altogether.

There is nothing more cynical than a poverty reduction strategy based on cutting $100 per month from social assistance. Speaker, what will it take for the Premier to stop these cuts to social assistance?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I think, as the member knows, we are looking to streamline various employment benefits for those with disabilities so that, in fact, we will be creating a far more flexible benefit so that those individuals who do require some assistance in terms of obtaining additional training or other skills that they may need in order to enter the labour market will be able to do so and, in fact, will see increased amounts and increased funding for those purposes.

The specific area of the Work-Related Benefit has been put on hold as of this date, as the member mentioned. We continue to ensure, as we move on with social assistance reform, that we look at all opportunities to protect and encourage those Ontarians to take their full place and be included in our society.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Good morning, Speaker. My question, through you to the minister responsible for women’s issues: We recently began public hearings for the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment. Committee work has been progressing very well in examining sexual violence and harassment in the workplace and beyond. It is an example of positive, non-partisan collaboration that we can have if we work together as parties.

It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment helps to contextualize the work that the committee is doing. I know the purpose of the plan is to engage everyone in communities, classrooms and workplaces across Ontario in the conversation about how to stop sexual violence and harassment.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you say that we have begun to see an impact?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Barrie for asking this very pertinent and timely question. Indeed, our approach is having an impact. Our government’s ads that have been out there in the public domain have been viewed by more than seven million people. On the Ontario government’s YouTube page alone, over one million views. It has become a viral sensation around the world, with 2.5 million Facebook views in Turkey, where local activists added Turkish subtitles, and it has been viewed 1.7 million times in Brazil.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My next question also is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. It is wonderful that the campaign is beginning to resonate so much in just the first few weeks of its launch. It makes me very proud to be a member of this government to see such wide interest receptivity to our ad, not just in Ontario or Canada, but internationally as well. It seems like a step in the right direction towards changing attitudes and creating more public awareness of this issue.

I understand, as part of the work on the action plan, that you are convening a multi-sector round table through the Ontario Women’s Directorate on this issue. How will the round table help to improve the experiences of survivors who come forward about abuse and make workplaces and campuses safer and more responsive to complaints about sexual violence and harassment? Through you, Speaker, to the minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The permanent round table on sexual violence and harassment is a forum of experts that will advise government on our initiatives and all the issues and opportunities around sexual violence and harassment.

There are many diverse voices around that table, Speaker. We have representatives that have significant front-line support who work with different communities. The round table includes experts on issues affecting specific populations as well, such as aboriginal persons, francophones, LGBT, newcomers, persons with disabilities, youth, older women as well as boys and men. It also has experts who can speak to violence and harassment in the workplace, and at our colleges and universities, which is a big issue right now, Speaker.

I am very pleased that the select committee is moving ahead, and the round table will be kept informed of the work of the committee and coordinate the efforts.

Pesticides

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Minister, on March 23 you released a draft regulation for an 80% neonic ban on Ontario’s corn and soybean acreage. This is exactly what you proposed before Christmas, and, in spite of feedback—no change. Also on March 23, the USDA released its study concluding neonics are not driving bee deaths. The evidence for your ban is at best circumstantial and has not been proven in controlled scientific studies—certainly not from Health Canada’s pest management agency, where the true expertise lies. Your approach is derived from ideology. It’s irresponsible. It’s intimidating.

Minister, why did you allow emotion to trump science?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I appreciate the question from the honourable gentleman from Haldimand–Norfolk. We do know that a healthy pollinator strategy is very important to the agricultural community in the province of Ontario. We do know that there’s a number of contributing factors to bee health. We’ve gone through two very severe winters in the province of Ontario. We do know that there’s a mite, the Varroa mite, that can impact the health of beehives.

We do know that appropriate management of beehives in the province of Ontario is very important, and we do know that the use of some pesticides is a contributing factor to bee health. Indeed, working with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, we listened—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Jeff Leal: —we listened, we had public consultations right across the province of Ontario, we had consultations through the EBR; we have taken all that information into consideration and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary, please?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Minister, we do know the crucial role of pollinators, and I have on my desk the Ontario Pollinator Health Blueprint; you would as well. It comes from a task force of certified crop advisers, ag retailers, the seed trade, farmers, beekeepers, with recommendations for increased communication between farmers and beekeepers; work on bee nutrition and habitat; and manageable and reasonable limits on insecticide use.

You asked for feedback, as you said. You asked the cash crop and the beekeeper community to meet you halfway. They have, and yet, despite all of this, you’re adamant on your neonic ban.

Minister, your proposed regs, in my view, are anti-agriculture. You’re supposed to be the minister for agriculture, to represent farmers. You’re at the table in cabinet. Why will you not speak up for farmers?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, since I’m in a very—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You don’t start until I acknowledge—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Sorry, I’m just so anxious.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, I know.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Well, Mr. Speaker, I heard the supplementary from my good friend the member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

So let’s look at the facts. The agriculture sector of the province of Ontario: $34 billion in GDP; employs 760,000 Ontarians each and every day; represents 23%—23% of our manufacturing sector in Ontario is in the agri-food sector.

You know, I spend my time on the back concessions in Ontario and at kitchen tables. I know, this government knows, that the agri-food sector has a tremendous potential for growth, not the negativity shown by the official opposition.

Interjections.

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

New question.

LGBT conversion therapy

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. There are currently doctors practising in Ontario, paid by OHIP, who believe that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans is a form of mental illness. Instead of offering support to LGBTQ kids, these doctors tell them that they are broken and need to be fixed. Instead of helping, they use abusive conversion therapies that try to turn these kids straight.

I recently introduced a bill that would prevent Ontario’s doctors from abusing LGBTQ kids with such so-called therapies. California and New Jersey have already passed similar laws.

Premier, I ask, on behalf of survivors like Erika Muse, and the victims who did not survive, like Leelah Alcorn: Will you ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ children?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I too want to applaud the member opposite. I think this is a very important issue. I personally find this type of alleged treatment abhorrent.

Interjection: Alleged?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Alleged in the eyes of those who actually perpetrate this misconduct. This isn’t treatment. Our Ontario Human Rights Code is very specific on issues such as this.

I welcome the private member’s bill from the member opposite, and I look forward to working with her. I know it’s going to be debated this afternoon.

I want to emphasize that no current medical guidelines anywhere that I’ve found, certainly not in this province, support or endorse this kind of alleged treatment that would aim to change or convert someone away from being LGBT.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: The health minister recently denied that OHIP was paying for conversion therapy for LGBT kids. The fact is, there are doctors, including very influential doctors, who are still trying to “fix” LGBTQ kids with abusive so-called conversion therapies. These doctors can and do bill OHIP for these abusive counselling sessions.

Just last week, as a result of my bill and the hard work of LGBTQ activists, CAMH launched a complete review of their treatment of trans youth, treatment the minister has denied is even happening.

Again, to the Premier: Do you agree that such conversion therapy for LGBTQ children should be banned in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I take great offence to the accusation that I have somehow, at any point in time, said that this treatment isn’t occurring or doesn’t exist.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s on the public record.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I challenge you to find that public record, but Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock, please.

We’d best do our debating through the Chair. That way, we don’t change the debate tenure.

I would ask the minister to address me, and keep the heckling to a minimum.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite does know that there is no billing code in the

schedule of benefits for OHIP for conversion therapy or anything like it.

As well, I will be asking the relevant colleges, because there are a number that potentially could be involved in addressing this important situation, to explore amending the regulations to ban this practice, as it should be banned.

I believe if a particular incident were to be brought forward—I would encourage anyone who is aware of such alleged treatments taking place anywhere in this province to go forward to the appropriate regulatory body. I’m asking them to review their regulations, and certainly this is not something this government would ever support or endorse.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do I have to go to members?

New question.

Hydro rates

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, the investments our government has made to take a dirty and unreliable electricity system and make it clean and reliable have been putting cost pressures on Ontario families.

For many low-income Ontarians, paying their monthly electricity bill is a challenge. I have heard this from some constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre. In comparison to other residential users in the province, low-income Ontarians spend a disproportionately higher percentage of their income on paying the monthly power bill.

While we recognize that our government is working hard to keep electricity affordable for all Ontarians, could the minister please tell this House what our government is doing to help low-income households with their electricity bills?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Firstly, thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for the question.

The issue of helping low-income Ontarians with the cost of their electricity bill is one that we have been working hard to alleviate for some time now. While there are already emergency assistance programs and conservation programs in place to reduce electricity costs for Ontarians, we recognize the need to establish an ongoing support program for those most in need.

Just this morning, with members of the Low-Income Energy Network, I announced that our government is taking action to make electricity more affordable for Ontarians through the proposed implementation of the Ontario Electricity Support Program. The program would provide ongoing assistance directly on the bills of eligible low-income electricity consumers starting January 1, 2016. I want to thank the members from the network for their collaboration with the Ontario Energy Board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you, Minister, for informing us about this proposed rollout of the Ontario Electricity Support Program. It is encouraging to hear that this program would provide targeted help to those who need it the most, making sure that all Ontarians, especially low-income Ontarians, have continued access to clean and reliable electricity.

The proposed creation of this Ontario Electricity Support Program would also support the government’s commitment to reducing poverty in Ontario, given that energy costs are a significant part of housing costs for many households. As the rollout of this program coincides with the end of the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, could the minister give us some more details on how the Ontario Electricity Support Program is going to help low-income Ontarians, how much financial assistance it will provide, and if there are other programs that they might qualify for?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the program would provide targeted support. It would be based on a sliding scale that provides support based on a household’s income and size. The OESP would work together with the Ontario government’s decision to remove the debt retirement charge from all residential consumers’ bills at the end of this year. For example, for a family of four with an annual income of less than $28,000, the combined savings from the OESP and the removal of the debt retirement charge will be about $525 annually.

There are also existing programs available to help Ontarians with their electricity costs. These include the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, the Northern Ontario Energy Credit and the saveONenergy Home Assistance program. Ontario is committed to assisting those people most