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

December 1, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-01 (PDF)

L128A - Tue 1 Dec 2015 / Mar 1er déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 December 2015 Mardi 1 er décembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Wearing of football jersey

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

Grey Cup / La Coupe Grey

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Winter highway maintenance

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

By-election in Sudbury

Privatization of public assets

Taxation

Energy policies

Winter highway maintenance

Water quality

Trucking safety

Autism treatment

Manufacturing jobs

Health care

Visitors

Correction of record

Use of question period

Deferred Votes

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

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

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Municipal land transfer tax

Privatization of public assets

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics

Canada’s Best Restroom

Energy policies

Giving Tuesday

Sandra Holdsworth

Canadian Marketing Association Awards

World AIDS Day

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 allégeant les formalités administratives pour les commerçants de véhicules automobiles

Métis Nation of Ontario Secretariat Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Secrétariat de la nation métisse de l’Ontario

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Contraventions Causing Death or Serious Bodily Harm), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant le Code de la route (contraventions ayant causé un décès ou des blessures corporelles graves)

Petitions

Taxation

Privatization of public assets

Tenant protection

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Health care

Hydro rates

Health care funding

Newborn health

Hyperbaric therapy

Highway improvement

GO Transit

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Health care

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Order of business

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 30, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant plusieurs lois et abrogeant plusieurs règlements en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’énergie et la planification énergétique à long terme.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Mr. Speaker, long-term energy planning is essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy future. Ontarians have been clear that they want to play a larger role in our government’s long-term energy planning process. The government has listened and introduced the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015.

If passed, this legislation, as we’ve heard throughout debate, would ensure a consistent, transparent long-term planning process is followed. It would enshrine in law a requirement for extensive consultation with the public, stakeholders and aboriginal groups in the development of energy plans, as is already standard practice, and amend the Green Energy Act, 2009, to introduce two new initiatives to help Ontario families, businesses and the province as a whole conserve energy and water to manage costs. It would support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the IESO to undertake competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement when appropriate.

In 2010 and in 2013, our government developed long-term energy plans, also called LTEPs, to guide energy planning and advance energy policy initiatives. These LTEPs set out comprehensive direction for the energy sector and were developed through an extensive consultation process with consumers, stakeholders and aboriginal groups throughout the province.

The proposed legislation would enshrine this LTEP process to ensure that energy planning is done transparently and pragmatically and that LTEPs are developed consistent with the principles of cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community and aboriginal engagement, and an emphasis on conservation and demand management. This would replace the lengthy and cumbersome integrated power system planning process that is currently in place.

Just yesterday, during second reading debate, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said, “I’m going to be the last speaker from our side, and hopefully this time the government will actually allow this bill to go through a real, true committee process....”

We allowed debate to continue when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on this bill so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. The bill has now seen well over 10 hours of debate. According to my count, over half of the members of this Legislature have spoken to the bill. There has been considerable debate on this bill and we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. I agree with the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane that it’s time that this bill be put to a vote for second reading and hopefully be referred to committee where the important work takes place.

In committee, members of all parties will hear from stakeholders that have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will be able to provide their important input on this bill. And in committee, members will have an opportunity to move amendments to strengthen the bill. At the same time, this House can move on to debate other substantive matters.

There are a number of pieces of important legislation that have already been introduced which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process. I’ll make some examples: Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act; Bill 119, the Health Information Protection Act, a very important bill; and Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act.

We’d like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we can’t do that until Bill 135 is referred to committee for further debate. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I move that this question be put now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I appreciate hearing from the member and your justification. However, it’s my opinion right now that this particular bill does require further debate, so I will not allow the closure motion at this point in time.

To the member: You still have the floor.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I will yield the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I appreciate the member’s enthusiasm about closing off debate.

I want to quote the dean of the Legislature, the member for St. Catharines, Jim Bradley, who was elected in 1977. He’ll soon be celebrating his 40th anniversary in the Legislature. On many occasions, I have quoted him when he has talked about the fact that closure motions choke off debate. I think one of the great things in our Westminster parliamentary systems is the fact that we have robust debate, that we have an opportunity to debate bills before this House. I happen to agree with the member for St. Catharines, the chair of caucus, Mr. Bradley, and I think more and more this government is governing by closure motion.

I really believe that in this environment—we saw yesterday a number of bills from all parties, private members’ bills, go to committee and have some hearings. But on this bill, I think there are a number of members who, from our caucus at least, have not had the opportunity. In fact, the vast majority of our caucus members have yet to be on the record on Bill 135.

Given this government’s misguided energy policies, given the fact that, for example, 80% of Ontarians don’t support their misguided plan to sell Hydro One, I think it’s appropriate, as an opposition party, that we’re given—and I think I can speak on behalf of the other opposition party, the New Democrats, that we need to have this debate here today. We need to make sure that the concerns of our constituents get on the floor, especially when it comes to this government’s energy policy.

I’m glad today that debate will continue, and I look forward to some of the other issues and matters being placed on the floor this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s a pleasure to stand up and give my questions and comments. That’s kind of an interesting twist today, Speaker. The member from York South–Weston has proposed that we close debate, and you’ve overruled that and allowed us to continue to debate. That is important, because I know there are many members in this House who still haven’t had the opportunity to have their thoughts toward this bill put on the record. It’s very important.

As we talk about this bill, it’s about energy. That is a hot topic in Ontario. It is a hot topic in ridings all over Ontario. There was a town hall just recently that we had on Sunday, I believe it was, Sunday afternoon, and the number of people who attended was surprising; we’re talking over 150 people. This government is selling off Hydro. We had the first tranche a little while ago, and people are still asking, “How can we stop the sale of Hydro?” They’re not giving up. Debating Bill 135 is part of that conversation on energy, and I think we need to continue that debate.

The member from York South–Weston also talked about transparency and being pragmatic. We believe in being transparent. Having full debate on bills is another avenue, another path to take to be transparent. It can happen on the government side: Their members could actually take their full time to debate this bill. That would be transparent. They would get their thoughts out to their community.

Then on this side, us taking our time: When we have a 20-minute debate or a 10-minute debate, not sharing it, speed debating; we’re taking that time to be transparent about what’s happening in our ridings, what feedback we’d like to give this government and what we criticize about this bill so that we can all have that fulsome debate. Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair this morning, bright-eyed and—whatever the saying is.

I just wanted to add to the member from York South–Weston’s comments this morning, or speech. I spoke yesterday, and I’m going to be around the same lines. We seem to be very repetitious. As we debate some legislation, we seem to sway, and I get that. We’re all elected here, and we all have an opportunity to express what either our party or we ourselves want to put forward. That’s great, but in some cases I think it’s just for the sake of speaking and not adding anything to debate.

Speaker, you know and I know that it’s important, once again, to express our opinion here. But it’s also important to send pieces of legislation to committee, because that’s when folks from outside of these four walls have an opportunity to come and talk to us as legislators about what’s important to them and what’s crucial, things that we need to address.

When we say we want to listen to our communities, we want to listen to Ontarians, that’s a good place to be. I get calls from folks in my riding who express their opinions. But when it comes to the collective piece, I think it’s also important that they talk to us across party lines on what’s important. So I would hope that we send this stuff to committee and get that important work done so that we can move on instead of just being repetitious.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand and join the debate through questions and comments on Bill 135 because there’s much to be said. I fear that this government is on a track. Trend after trend is showing that they’re taking democracy away not only from us, as opposition, but the third party and all of Ontario. I hope people in this province realize the conundrum that’s happening here, because this government has proven themselves to be incompetent. When they take democracy out of our hands, we see gaffes, if you will.

For instance, just last week, by regulation there was going to be a particular move with regard to a regulation made through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. And then, within 24 hours, it was repealed. That’s what happens when democracy is removed from debating an issue so that thoughtfulness can be added to this whole situation.

Bill 135 is taking the independence away, if you will, from IESO as well. We’re losing the oversight that this government has proven time and again that they need. In terms of oversight, you know, it’s interesting. We continuously say on this side of the House that the Liberal Party of today doesn’t have a revenue problem; they have a spending problem. Because of that, they turn to the taxpayer time and again. The energy audit is just one example coming out of this bill we cannot agree with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from York South–Weston for final comments.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I want to thank the member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from London–Fanshawe, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West and the member from Huron–Bruce for their comments.

I really hope that, at this point, we’re going to hear new viewpoints, we’re going to hear new opinions, we’re going to hear new perspectives on this bill. I look forward to an interesting debate with new constructive criticism, new notions, new suggestions and new initiatives that can be added to this bill, because I don’t look forward to, to put it as the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound often says, the same old. Democracy is about knowing when we have spoken enough and when we have nothing new to add. So I really look forward to all these new initiatives, these new notions, these new viewpoints and these opinions that will be coming from the continuation of this debate.

I think that it’s important not only to hear ourselves; I think it’s important to hear from the stakeholders who really have an interest in this bill. I think it’s really important to hear from the public. We can only do that at committee. I think that’s where the members have the opportunity to move amendments so we can really strengthen the legislation. So that, Mr. Speaker, is why I had suggested that after 10 hours, we could reflect on what is new to say, what is left to say.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I really appreciate the opportunity today to discuss Bill 135. Bill 135, however, I don’t think can just be discussed in the context of what’s before us in terms of this bill. I actually think we have to have a larger discussion in the province of Ontario with respect to our hydro system, grid capacity, the choices we make in order to supply that grid, and the choices that the government has made in terms of taking away and removing independence in the electricity sector and thereby, I believe, eroding the confidence that Ontarians have in our electricity system.

I’ll give you one example before I start. It is the cancelled gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. Those two cancelled gas plants were sited by the government. When there was enough public outcry, they decided, in the middle of an election, to cancel those gas plants at the cost to the Ontario taxpayer and ratepayer of $1.2 billion. As I used to say when I was the energy critic, Dalton McGuinty spent more money to win the 2011 election than Barack Obama did to become the leader of the free world.

I want to put that in context and I want to leave that out there for the time being because I think it’s relevant in the sense that this has become a Liberal government that has used energy policy for its own electoral gain, and it has eroded, as I said earlier, the confidence of Ontarians. I look at, for example, Bill 135. It’s doing something similar to what happened with the cancelled gas plants in that it will remove independence from the IESO, the independent electricity supply organization; I think I’ve got that right.

The IESO has been—I think we’ve all known for quite some time—critical in the long-term planning of the province’s energy supply. It has been critical in having an independent voice so that the decisions that are made are made in the best interests of Ontario ratepayers, not in the best interests of the Ontario Liberal government.

That is the crux of this bill and why we are so concerned with it, because the Liberal government views the energy sector in the province of Ontario as an extension of itself. That is not within the best interests of the province nor of the people that I represent from the city of Ottawa in Nepean–Carleton.

I would also like just to point out the fact that the long-term energy plan—or, as I’ll refer to it, the LTEP—is something that the government has drafted from time to time and includes the IESO on, yet rarely ever follows through on any of its energy planning. I can talk about the mix, for one second, of energy in the province. When you look at, for example, the nuclear mix and also the gas mix—we’ve eliminated coal, and that’s something that we’re proud of on the Progressive Conservative side because that was done by our colleague, Elizabeth Witmer, when she was Minister of Energy, I believe.

Of course, I have a seatmate who is a former Minister of Energy who also did a great deal of work and has a very proud legacy within this province of being in the best interests of the people.

I will say this to my dear friend and my wonderful colleague from Simcoe–Grey, who is also the House leader: He was in charge of our electricity supply on 9/11. When that was hitting North America and when there were dangers south of the border, he was the person who had the decision-making authority to keep our nuclear facilities in this province safe. For that, I think we owe him a debt of gratitude. I want to say thank you to him.

But let’s get back to the long-term planning of the energy supply in this province. This bill, Bill 135, and the cancelled gas plants that the Liberals have brought in and the fact that they brought in wind power, which is very costly and driving up hydro rates across the province—I know, for example, the Speaker has a red-light district in his constituency. Red light in his constituency is not the same as in Amsterdam; the red light district in Leamington is because there are so many wind turbines that at night, all you see are red flashing lights.

That’s what the Speaker has to contend with every day because of this Liberal government. Now I see that Justin Trudeau, boy wonder, is going to expand this disaster right across the country. God help the other provinces who have not had to be part of this.

In the moments I have left, I want to touch on something else before I expand a little bit more on the IESO. What I want to talk about are these mandatory energy audits for homes. In 2009, my colleague John Yakabuski, who was then our energy critic and who is now our energy critic today, fought on the floor of this assembly and demanded that these energy audits be removed from the Green Energy Act, and he was successful. He was successful because it was the will of the people of the province who spoke up and said, “We can’t afford this.

This isn’t something that we think is necessary.” The people of this province agreed with him. Therefore, he pressured the Liberals to eliminate these mandatory home audits.

Here we see the Liberal government, years later—that bill was in 2009; we’re now in 2015. The government is now engaging in this again. That, to me, speaks to the lack of ability that this government has with respect to energy. I also note that with Bill 135, we are again eroding the independence in the electricity system to benefit this Liberal government.

What happens when the government of the day has more influence in the electricity sector than it should? When I say “than it should,” I simply mean that there is not an energy expert over there. In fact, I believe that the only person in this entire assembly who has actually worked in one of Ontario’s nuclear facilities is Bill Walker, who is the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and who sits on the opposition benches. He has probably more knowledge on the energy file than all of the other members put together over there because he has worked on the front lines.

But I digress, because again, it brings us back to Bill 135, and the fact that Bill 135 erodes that independence and expert advice from the IESO to give more power and more control to the ministry, and, as a result of it being in the ministry, more control for the minister, who is not a trained scientist, nor should he be. I just make that point because we in Ontario require independent experts to run our energy system.

Now, what I find interesting—and my colleagues, I think, will agree—is that we just ran a federal election campaign, and we watched as young Justin Trudeau criss-crossed the country talking about Stephen Harper muzzling scientists. Well, if you want to see the reality and who wants to muzzle people in this country, it is this Liberal government, which has consistently muzzled the public by refusing to take bills through committee and through travel. They have consistently shut down debate in this assembly. I dare say that if we decided to do a comparison or an analysis, we would find this government shuts down legislation far more than any other government in the country.

Finally, if you want to talk about muzzling experts, you look no further than this bill, because this bill, Bill 135—the proper name of this bill is the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, which will revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term planning. This bill is not going to muzzle scientists; it’s actually just going to erode any independence. It is going to erode any expert advice and independent planning in our energy sector in the province of Ontario.

By the way, we have the highest energy rates in all of North America, and I don’t blame anyone but the Liberal Party of Ontario for that. That is their fault, and it is only going to get worse if Bill 135 passes without amendment.

I want to congratulate our critic John Yakabuski from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his long service here as our energy critic, now and in 2009, when he fought the home energy audits in the first place. I want to congratulate my seatmate, the former Minister of Energy, who worked so hard and tirelessly in order to keep our facilities secure during terrorist attacks just south of our border. And I want to thank all members for the opportunity to be part of this debate here, to engage in what I believe is a very fundamental issue for legislators here at Queen’s Park, and one that we must continue to discuss.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m also pleased to join the debate. I think it’s important to point out that what the government is doing with Bill 135 is they’re removing the authority of the OEB in terms of their planning and approval for planning of electricity and electricity delivery in this province. They are removing their authority when it comes to planning and when it comes to approval.

However, the government will claim that when they sell off Hydro One and it becomes privatized, the OEB will be able to protect the consumer. In this bill, they’re eroding the powers of the OEB. You can’t have it both ways. On one hand, the government is saying, “Trust the OEB. We trust the OEB to ensure that the consumers are protected,” but “We’re going to continually remove the authority of the OEB. We’re going to remove the powers of the OEB.

We’re going to weaken them.” How, then, can the government say that the public will be protected by this organization, which ostensibly does have the hallmarks of accountability—it does provide some mechanisms for transparency, and it does provide some ability for oversight, but how can the government claim that the OEB will provide that oversight when they are actually eroding its power in this bill?

In addition, this bill is a continuing trend of the erosion of the OEB. This is not something that is beginning with Bill 135. With the sale of Hydro One, the government hasn’t even submitted that privatization scheme to the OEB for independent review, for independent analysis. The government hasn’t done that. This is just a continuation of a trend of the government continuing to remove powers from the OEB, to weaken the OEB, to take away an independent mechanism for planning electricity in a manner which is based on evidence and, instead, resulting in something that is going to put Ontario into a worse position.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m going to be brief. We want to continue debate, and in the last half hour that I’ve been here, Speaker, I haven’t heard anything new, so I really, really recommend that we move this on and let’s get it to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m confused, Speaker. He said we want to continue debate but then he said we want to get it to committee. Well, he’s going to have to make up his mind.

I was glad to have the opportunity to be here this morning and listen to the member from Nepean–Carleton take

part in this debate, this debate that is the epitome of practising democracy, giving us the opportunity to speak. I really appreciated her remarks, especially the ones about the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, of course, because I’m always waiting for those complimentary remarks from the members from the other side. I’m still waiting, but folks, we are in the Christmas season now. If you want to be charitable, I’m listening. I’m listening, because I always have good things to say about the folks on the other side.

But what I don’t have good things to say about is how, when they stand in their place—I expect when the debate shifts over to the other side, we’re going to hear the sound, the swoosh. We’re going to hear the swoosh one more time—

Interjection: The guillotine.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —where the guillotine will drop and they will move closure on this bill.

This is an important piece of legislation. This fundamentally changes how we operate at the IESO and OEB, two supposedly independent agencies that are going to have so many of their powers taken away directly—directly—by the architects of the electricity and energy disaster we are currently suffering from in this province.

So, should I feel comfortable? No, I don’t feel comfortable. Should the people of Ontario feel comfortable that this government is going to usurp the independence of the IESO and the OEB in this piece of legislation? I say nay, not so, sir. Nay, not so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’m thinking of our young pages this morning. When they go back to school, they’re going to tell their teachers and their classmates about how well-educated they were at the provincial Parliament, because all the bills were time-allocated. “What an education we had. All they talked about was time allocation.”

And here we are again, with the Liberals saying, “You don’t trust us. You guys have said long enough about what you believe, and we believe differently.” Well, the fact of the matter is, Speaker, that 80% of the people in Ontario—by the Liberals’ own polling numbers; they can’t refute them—are opposed to the sell-off of Hydro One. Nearly 200 of Ontario’s 444 municipal councils have debated and voted motions opposed to the government’s selling Hydro One.

So when the opposition parties stand up and say, “You guys aren’t listening. You don’t get it. You’re forcing something on the people of Ontario that they don’t want,” they say, “Gosh, we better shut down debate, because what if more people hear what the opposition is saying? Those polling numbers will go higher. We can’t go back to our ridings over the Christmas break and say, ‘Oh, no, I forgot to tell you I was going to sell Hydro One when I asked for your vote. Please forgive me.’”

They’re not going to be forgiven, Speaker. The people in Ontario don’t want this. The people in Ontario want to hear the opposition parties tell them what’s wrong with the bills that the government is bringing forward. When we try to do that, they say, “Ah, time out. We’re going to shut down debate.” That isn’t right, Speaker. It isn’t the democratic way and it shouldn’t be tolerated in Ontario’s provincial Parliament.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Nepean–Carleton for final comments.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to say thank you to my colleagues from Windsor West, from Bramalea–Gore–Malton—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Windsor–Tecumseh.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Windsor–Tecumseh; I apologize—from Northumberland–Quinte West, and of course from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I think I’ve made my views on Bill 135 abundantly clear, so I’d like to actually respond to some of the comments that were made, if you’ll indulge me, Speaker.

I want to first start with my colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh. He talked about our pages, and he talked about the bills that we discuss and that they ought to be learning about, particularly this one here. I think it’s important that they understand the energy mix and supply and how it’s run in the province of Ontario.

But he made an even more valid point than just that. He said that we are shutting down debate quite a bit here. I think it’s actually been unprecedented. I credit him with bringing this to the floor of the assembly, because I think it’s important that we discuss all of the matters that are relevant to the people of the province.

My colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West: I do take umbrage with your suggestion that we should just move bills on because the Conservatives say the same thing and the NDP says the same thing. I want to say this to you, and I say this as somebody who has been on the opposition side for the past decade; this is very important and please do not forget it: The rules are in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

In the sense of this assembly, the rules are in place to protect people on this side of the aisle, whether they are Progressive Conservatives or New Democrats, so that we can stand in our place and, despite the decisions you may make, we can go home each weekend and let our constituents know that we have had our say and we are defending them. The rules are in place to allow us that. You are continually breaking the rules by enforcing closure. That is not fair. That is not the spirit of this place.

We want to continue to debate this bill. We want to continue to debate other issues like the sale of Hydro One, and you have consistently shut us down.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Just to point out that I think the member from Nepean–Carleton reaffirmed the fact that she has nothing to say about Bill 135. She talked about how sad she is that her great leader was defeated in the federal election and she’s so upset. That’s what she talked about. She didn’t talk about Bill 135—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the member opposite is going to quote me, perhaps he should actually read my speech and refer directly to it instead of making up false—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I would ask the member to withdraw the last comment.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Sure, I would withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I don’t see that as a point of order.

Back to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: As I was saying, if there were relevant points to be made about Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, it would be worthwhile to hear, but when you just rattle on about how upset you are about the fact the people of Canada spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted a new government, that’s not what this bill is about.

I think she proved the point, the member for Nepean–Carleton. We have had over 11 hours of debate; they have nothing else to say. We should now do what is the right thing and hear from the people who will be before committee, where there will be more debate, more analysis, and hear from the public to have their say on this important piece of legislation. An important part of this Legislature is the committee work. This bill should go to committee, where we bring in the experts and the stakeholders to have their say, and we have a debate that will continue there.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, after 11 hours, I put the question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member for the valid points he has made. Again, earlier, my ruling was that I wanted to allow debate to continue. I recognize the number of hours that we’ve had in terms of debate, but I also recognize and look at the number of members who have had an opportunity to debate. Therefore, I am not going to allow closure of debate on this particular bill at this point in time.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, you still have time left on the clock if you care to continue.

Mr. Mike Colle: No. I wish to move this to committee where we can hear from the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk about Bill 135. My concern, however, is that we have just listened to about two minutes from the government and they didn’t discuss the bill whatsoever. All they talked about was shutting down debate on removing the independence from the IESO. That’s what this government just did.

They didn’t talk about any of the content of the bill. They only talked about shutting down debate. That, I think, speaks volumes about what they’re doing here in terms of eroding the independence. If the former minister—and I remind him of the reason he left government—would like to talk about why we have such a big concern here, it is because every time this government has an energy bill before this assembly, it ends up being catastrophic to the people of Ontario.

When this government talks about long-term energy planning, which is, by the way, in the title of the bill, I think that we deserve to have an opportunity to discuss the long-term energy plan. But unfortunately, the government wants to continually shut that down. That’s all he spoke about. If he has nothing to say, perhaps he should have given some extra time to other members of this assembly who are concerned about the energy supply, the energy mix, the energy planning in this province, and who are concerned that the independence of the IESO is being eroded. I think that’s necessary and I think that’s important for future speakers to this bill.

Now, Speaker, I want to congratulate you as somebody who has allowed this debate to continue. As I’ve said here, and I believe that the member from Windsor–Tecumseh had mentioned, it’s getting very frustrating here. We in the opposition are being vilified by the government for wanting to take the views of our constituents to the floor of this assembly. If we can’t discuss that here without the government and the minister, and the former minister in particular, talking about the need for closure, then I don’t know why we’re still here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again, it’s always a pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. It’s a little frustrating listening to where this discussion is going this morning. I know I was looking forward to bringing the concerns and the views of the vast people across Algoma–Manitoulin who are frustrated with some of the directions in which this government is taking our province.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here again this morning is a closure. They’re telling us, “Wait a second. Before we proceed with this, we don’t agree with the views of Ontarians at this point in time.” Mind you, as some of my colleagues indicated earlier, well over 85% of the province’s individuals are against the direction this government is taking with the sell-off of Hydro One. Well over 180 municipalities have also done the same.

Having said all that, we’re still going to listen to this government say, “Listen, we don’t agree with what is going on. We’re tired of hearing the opposition. We want to progress and move this into committee, so we’re going to shut down debate.” That’s not right, because I have a lot of constituents who have a lot to offer in this debate. I have a lot of people who have approached me regularly, in the malls, at the Tim Hortons—we just had another event where a colleague of mine was up in Elliot Lake for “stop the sale of Hydro One,” where we had a good portion of Elliot Lake people who were present.

I have received over 1,800 petitions where individuals were totally opposed to the direction this government is taking our province, and we’re telling them, “Wait a second. We’re going to shut down debate. Your views don’t matter.” That is absolutely wrong. That is undemocratic and that is not what this Legislature is all about. Debate should continue on and we should have a full, wholesome debate about what this particular bill is all about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m trying to earn my pay today, Speaker, as you can tell.

Yes, debate is important. Nobody would ever question that debate is important. But at the end of the debate, we should get some value from the debate, and I’m not so sure that’s what I’m hearing today. We heard yesterday that we’re prepared to move on. Well, today is a different story, Speaker. So I’m disappointed in that piece.

I respect views from the other side, Speaker; I want to make it very, very clear. But all that I’m saying is that I think we’re spending this morning basically going around in circles. Personally, it’s my opinion that time could be better used in committee to kind of smooth out the edges, if you may, Speaker, because frankly, yes, we could get upset about the federal election and the Newfoundland election of yesterday. We could talk about those things, Speaker, but the reality of the day is we want to be—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: What happened?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: What happened? Oh, I think it’s all Liberal governments from Ontario east, Minister. That kind of explains it.

Speaker, I really feel that we need to move on. There’s debate in third reading, if you feel very, very strongly to revisit some things after the committee hearings. I really would encourage my fellow members from all sides of the House: Let’s move on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I certainly am pleased to stand because I feel, as an opposition member, that I need to react to some of the comments that were being made.

It’s interesting. The government has put forward that there are no new ideas coming forward. To that I say, shame on them. Specifically around the Green Energy Act, we have put forward, time and again, ideas on how to make life a little bit easier for Ontarians, whether it’s their energy bills that are skyrocketing because of the unaffordable subsidies that are being paid out primarily to proponents of wind who tend to—if you follow the dotted line—be friends with the Liberal Party, or it is the ridiculousness about the energy audits.

Seniors who may have to sell their homes so that they have enough money in their bank account to pay for their long-term care are going to be hit with another bill. Think of the farmhouses; think of the seniors who have been in their homes for 20 or 30 years. Are they going to be able to afford new windows, a new furnace—the list goes on and on—when all they really should be caring about, because they have paved the way for us, is a comfortable retirement and knowing that they have the funds to pay for the care that they deserve and need in their senior years? This government has totally lost touch with Ontarians.

The other thing is that they say, “Let’s get this bill into committee so the public is heard.” Speaker, I would suggest to you that the public needs to be heard before legislation is ever developed. Yesterday I was embarrassed to sit across from this government because, when we were addressing Bill 122 in the general government committee, time and again, stakeholders were saying, “We only heard about this a week and a half ago.”

Speaker, this government has gone off the rails and they’re taking the province with them. It’s unacceptable and it needs to stop.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for final comments.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’ll be brief again. The debate process continues. We should invite members of our constituency to come to committee. We should debate it at committee, and there’s also third reading debate. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we had zero third reading debate time when the Harris government was in power—no third reading debate. We’re offering third reading debate also.

So let’s hear from the people and send it to committee where the work will be done with the experts and the members of the public. Let’s move it to committee, and then on to third reading debate, hopefully.

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

Mr. Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I will repeat for clarification purposes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

Wearing of football jersey

Hon. Michael Gravelle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that the Premier be permitted to wear an Edmonton Eskimos jersey and provide a brief statement regarding the Grey Cup before question period today, Tuesday, December 1, 2015.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Agreed? Agreed.

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

Mr. McMeekin moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the minister for leadoff.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, Lou Rinaldi—a very hard-working fellow; I’m very proud of Lou. He has been carrying a lot of the load over in municipal affairs and housing with some considerable distinction, and I want that said for the record.

I rise to begin third reading debate on the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015. I’m very proud of Bill 73. During second reading, I discussed how land use planning in Ontario is very much like a large jigsaw puzzle. When my daughters were younger, we used to spend hours together at the cottage working on jigsaw puzzles. They used to tease me by hiding pieces of the puzzle. They wouldn’t admit that they had set them aside, and suddenly they would appear. As a family, our puzzle strategy was to start by establishing the outside frame, then filling in from there.

In many ways, it’s a great analogy to describe what Bill 73 represents. If passed, Bill 73 would better ensure that Ontario’s continued and ongoing growth is managed properly, and it would allow municipalities to recover more development charges for transit services. For example, Waterloo, Ottawa, and York region combined could see increases in transit funding from development charges that are well over $100 million per year. Needless to say, this would greatly help municipalities manage their growth more effectively.

Of course, you can’t force a puzzle piece into a spot where it doesn’t fit, so we have heard hours of debate by members of all parties so as to make some changes. At the committee, we heard from people and organizations from across Ontario on our proposed changes, and we listened. After hearing these views and perspectives, our government brought forward a number of amendments to the bill. These amendments make it stronger, more flexible and reflective of the diversity of our communities.

Our government introduced an amendment, for example, that would allow the public and stakeholders to have more time to review background studies on development charges. This would make the development charges system more transparent than it currently is.

We also heard that some municipalities, mostly smaller municipalities, are not supportive of the proposed two-year freeze on amendments to an official plan or zoning bylaw. So we brought forward a change that would authorize councils, and only councils, to permit by resolution applications to be made during their respective time-out periods.

The committee has also accepted amendments that would strengthen the proposed bill even further. I want to acknowledge some other things that we heard at committee. I’ve heard some say that we should have included inclusionary zoning. In particular, I want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and the member from Parkdale–High Park for their continued advocacy on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that planning and housing are linked and that we can’t complete this puzzle without making sure that we have a healthy supply of affordable housing in Ontario. We believe that issues related to affordable housing, including inclusionary zoning, would be best considered through the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy that we are currently updating—and working very hard at updating, by the way. I think that when members of the House see it, they’ll be pleased with the progress that we’ve made.

Ontario’s growth is a complex puzzle with many, many pieces. Passing Bill 73 is a crucial part of making sure that this puzzle comes together. We’ve got to continue to fill in the inside pieces through the Honourable David Crombie’s upcoming report on the coordinated review and greenbelt growth plans, through our Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy and through the pending review of the Ontario Municipal Board, which is very, very important.

With that said, I’d like to turn it over to my esteemed friend, Mr. Rinaldi.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I want to thank the minister for allowing me the opportunity to work with him to make sure that we come up with a piece of legislation that is going to make a difference for Ontarians.

Preserving our lands and building on rural and agricultural success is vital as the province grows. The proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, if passed, would help our smaller communities and rural municipalities grow and thrive. This means that municipalities would be able to tailor their public engagement policies to meet their communities’ needs. If Bill 73 is passed, there would be more opportunities for public input into the planning process.

Now, we have heard lots of feedback on the planning rules. This proposed legislation would provide for citizen representatives to be included in municipal planning advisory committees. Northern and lower-tier municipalities would continue to have these committees at their discretion.

Sustainable growth means considering the views of all Ontarians. Municipalities would need to set out in their official plans how and when the public would be consulted, and explain how the input received by councils affected their planning decisions.

We want to help ensure a more predictable planning system by helping all municipalities engage the public of Ontario. This means more control over official plans will remain at the local level.

We know that official plan reviews take time and resources. This is especially true in smaller communities, which have lower growth pressures and therefore require less frequent changes to planning documents compared to large urban centres. That’s why, if Bill 73 is passed, new official plans would only need to be reviewed every 10 years instead of the current five-year cycle. Being a former mayor of one of these small municipalities, this is welcome news.

The act will also allow for things to be worked out locally before being sent to the Ontario Municipal Board. We will do this by providing an option for additional time to resolve issues involving municipal planning documents. Municipalities will be allowed the time to engage in alternative dispute resolution, and the ability to appeal some items would be removed. This form of local control is particularly important to smaller communities. We are ensuring that the planning system is streamlined to enable efficient, stable growth in Ontario. The community will be better able to set out their vision for development, and it provides greater certainty about the form and shape of development.

Being smart about how we manage growth is the best way we can ensure that Ontario communities of all sizes and from all regions are sustainable. Mr. Speaker, I join Minister McMeekin in supporting Bill 73, and I urge all members to vote for the passage of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Nepean—or from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You got it, Speaker. Thank you very much.

It’s just a wonderful opportunity to speak to Bill 73 this morning, which the government—the minister and the PA—just spoke to very briefly. I didn’t hear a whole lot about the bill through their address, but then again, they don’t speak much about their legislation. They have a different philosophy: table it, ram it through, deal with the consequences. But, unfortunately, it’s the people of Ontario who always have to deal with the consequences of legislation that is rammed through without being properly debated or thought through.

I know I’ve used this cliché in the House before, but I like to do it because my son is an apprentice carpenter. They have a rule: Measure twice, cut once. You understand it because, if you cut that two-by-four too short, it’s not going to work. It’s just not going to work. But if you measure it a couple of times to be sure of the exact size, and you make that cut, it’s going to be a custom fit, and you’re going to be able to continue on with your work. But if you take a piece of legislation, and you take shortcuts, and you mess up—which is the habit of this government.

They are probably the leading government in history when it comes to messing up. They’re leading; in fact, they would win an Olympic gold medal for messing up, if there was one to be given out.

I want to talk about the land transfer tax. We’re going to have a chance to talk about that on Thursday afternoon when my colleague from Leeds–Grenville brings his motion. This is a municipal issue, and I say to the minister, don’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I really enjoy and appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would ask that you direct your comments to the Chair as opposed to something that may be perceived as antagonistic towards the other side. So if you would direct your comments to me, I would appreciate it. Thank you. You had 15 seconds.

I will give him 15 seconds on the clock.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Chair, I’ll say to the minister, through you: Don’t tax my dream and the dream of every young family in this province by instituting another tax on the sale of a home. That’s wrong. Don’t do it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Oh, Speaker, why do I get the short straw? I’ve got to try and follow the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Sometimes life isn’t fair, Speaker. How do you top anything that Mr. Yakabuski says, with the passion that he delivers his theatrical presentations in this Parliament? He is above and beyond. He is exceptional, I must say.

And Speaker, I must say, I thought you were the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek there for a minute this morning, bringing your own members to order in this House—doing a good job up there.

In reference to what we’ve heard so far this morning from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his parliamentary assistant, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed being on the committee when this bill went through clause-by-clause hearing. It was a real eye-opener, I have to tell you that, because I thought that when we listened to the delegations, we would actually listen to the delegations and put into the bill some of the great ideas that they brought forward. Well—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: And we did.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes, you did, all right.

As I say, it was an eye-opener and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I heard the minister talk today about the fun he had putting puzzles together. Well, I was a bit puzzled at committee as to why we didn’t do more and put more into it.

I am looking forward, very much, as we all are in the New Democratic caucus, to finally get something going on inclusionary zoning. The promise has been put out there. The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore is finally going to get his private member’s bill passed, I hope, after we heard so many times—our member from Parkdale–High Park has tried five or six times. It hasn’t happened yet. We can all work together. That’s what this House is about.

Thank you for your time this morning, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I am pleased to add a few comments to the speech by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his parliamentary assistant, the great member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

It’s interesting; they both have a municipal background like myself. I would say to you that Bill 73, the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, proposes changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act. Mr.

Speaker, I will tell you, coming from the municipal world, the most important job that municipal councillors do is related to the Planning Act, and the most controversial item that municipal councils get themselves involved in is the Planning Act because it’s probably one of the toughest pieces of legislation to write by the ministry—to encompass all the small towns, rural municipalities, upper-tier municipalities and the urban centres that we have across Ontario. You have to write a piece of legislation that is broad-based. Therefore, it’s a forever-changing process, because municipalities see continuous growth.

We see new technologies. We see all kinds of issues where municipalities don’t want to grow and they want to protect their green spaces.

If you look at this act, it provides some more opportunities for those municipalities to make some good decisions. Is it perfect? Probably not, because it’s very difficult to capture every little town and municipality that we have in this province. But I think the minister has done a fine job by consulting the community extensively over a long period of time and brought back a piece of legislation that updates the process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m happy to provide a couple of minutes of comment on Bill 73. It’s nice that we’ve heard from so many members this morning who have had previous municipal government experience. I look forward to comments, when this bill gets called again, from our very experienced member for Oxford, who is our critic.

I think the member previous from Scarborough–Rouge River really made a good point, the fact that it is difficult. This bill will be supported by some in the municipal sector; it will be opposed by some. I know I still have a number of concerns from this particular ministry.

As was mentioned by my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I’ve got a motion here on Thursday in private members’ business that would put a stop to an imposition of any new municipal land transfer taxes, which I believe would be devastating in our municipalities. I believe it would pit municipality against municipality. I hope that either the minister or the parliamentary assistant would affirm that the government will support my motion on Thursday so that we can give a clear message to our municipal partners that this isn’t a part of any future Municipal Act changes.

I would also just like to put on the record my concern that was expressed in the budget about the eastern Ontario growth plan that this government is proposing. I have serious and grave concerns about this government trying to change the way that planning is dealt with in eastern Ontario.

Since 2006, my riding of Leeds–Grenville has had very slow growth except for municipalities like North Grenville, which borders on the city of Ottawa. I would be very concerned if the government would make moves that would restrict growth in Leeds–Grenville. My municipalities are open for business and I want to keep it that way.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the minister for final comments.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank all those honourable members who took a couple of minutes to reflect on the importance of this legislation—legislation that has been significantly forged in the fires of consultation. We’ve spoken to everybody about this and it has had extensive additional review in the committee. I realize not everybody got everything they may have wanted and there are still some things out there that need to happen. Excellence is always the enemy of the good, I suppose.

This is good legislation. This is going to make a difference in municipalities. AMO likes it. We even made several of the changes AMO wanted made to ensure that they liked it. It speaks to the interests of small municipalities and larger municipalities, and it does so in a way that empowers citizens—who are often justifiably cynical about any government, and sometimes particularly municipal government—to be transformed into an engaged citizenry that will give guidance to their municipalities.

When they take that guidance, and that’s reflected through official plans, the municipalities will be protected from those inappropriate interventions by other stakeholders, perhaps in the development industry. I think that’s good. I’m told by them that development stakeholders like this because it provides some stability.

We’ll move forward with some of the other issues that have been raised and we’ll do those other issues—we’ll do them right, okay? I promise you that.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank all members for a good debate this morning.

Since it is now close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Grey Cup / La Coupe Grey

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday in Paris, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley told me that, really, to honour our wager, all I really needed to say is that Alberta is awesome, Edmonton is awesome and that they have an awesome football team. She might have said that they have an awesome Premier, but I thought that was a bit of a digression. I’m going to honour our wager in this way.

Of course, the hopes that we Ontarians held for a fairy tale ending to the second season of our beloved Ottawa Redblacks were dashed on Sunday night in Winnipeg. Both teams brought their A game but Edmonton prevailed. And so I wear this Edmonton jersey, happily, to salute the courageous efforts of our beloved Redblacks, who all season long inspired us and who took to the field for Sunday’s big match with such promise, and to salute the perseverance of the Redblacks’ Edmonton foes, who, with characteristic prairie grit, came from behind to grind out the big win.

In honour of Edmonton’s 14th Grey Cup win and in the spirit of all that unites us as Canadians, I’ve made a personal donation to an Alberta charity assisting with the settlement of Syrian refugees, and I made this on behalf of Premier Notley.

Au nom de la première ministre Notley, je félicite Edmonton, qui a remporté la Coupe Grey, en faisant un don personnel à un organisme de bienfaisance de l’Alberta qui aide à l’établissement de réfugiés syriens.

Fourteen Grey Cup wins is impressive and something for Edmonton to be very proud of. We here in Ontario’s capital city would know, because Toronto has hoisted the Grey Cup 16 times. My point is that there’s always next year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is my understanding, for clarity purposes for all members, that there was unanimous consent for the Premier to wear the jersey and that I would not have the Sergeant-at-Arms escort her out for doing so.

For the purposes of carrying on, it’s now time for introductions.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a guest from Scarborough–Agincourt: Don Perry, who is the parent of page captain Aislin Perry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Today we have with us a number of students representing the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, and I’d just like to acknowledge them.

We have Chris Fernlund from Trent Durham Student Association; Jessica Guarini from the Trent Durham Student Association; Antonio Sergi from the Brock University Students’ Union; Kyle Rose from the Brock University Students’ Union; Lindsee Perkins from Western University Students’ Council; Sophie Helpard from Western University Students’ Council; Stéphane Hamade from the Waterloo Federation of Students; Olivia Matthews from the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union; Tyler Lively from Queen’s Alma Mater Society; and Armin Escher from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce two groups visiting us today at question period. From my great riding of Oakville, we’ve got the grade 8 students from Maple Grove Public School.

We’re also joined today by some of my team from the Ministry of Labour. I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park, from the ministry, Tressa Alan, Alison Silveira, Laura Davidson and Catherine Virgo. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Wearing of ribbons

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Halton.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent for all members to be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of World AIDS Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons for World AIDS Day. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since the Auditor General’s report about the winter road maintenance contracts, the government has done nothing but brag about buying new equipment to prop up the failed agreements. The Minister of Transportation said that they have supplied over 100 new pieces of equipment to clear the roads. Yet, yesterday, his press secretary said that the province never purchased any equipment for road maintenance contractors. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier clarify: Did the government pay for the sanders and the plows, and how many did the government pay for?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I’ve had the opportunity on a number of occasions over the last few months to speak here in the Legislature about this important topic. Of course, I believe the leader of that party would know that when the auditor produced her report a number of months ago, she had eight recommendations regarding how we can improve the winter maintenance program that the ministry runs.

In addition to that, what I pointed out repeatedly in this House is that, prior to the auditor being called in by the standing committee to conduct her investigation, there were, over the course of two winter seasons prior to that, 105 pieces of equipment that were added to both northern and southern Ontario area maintenance contracts—105 pieces of equipment. For example, in the north that equipment helped with truck climbing and passing lanes, and in the south that equipment—50 or 55 pieces—helped with clearing ramps and shoulders quicker.

I look forward to the follow-up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier, because I can’t seem to get an answer from the Minister of Transportation. On April 29, the minister tweeted “50: the number of additional winter maintenance vehicles added to southern Ontario’s roads since 2012.” Another tweet: “55: the number of additional winter maintenance vehicles added to northern Ontario’s roads since 2012.” A third tweet summed it up: “MTO has added more than 100 pieces of snow-clearing equipment since 2012....”

Where are those 105 pieces of equipment the minister claims MTO added? If the Ministry of Transportation, and therefore the taxpayers, paid for those specific pieces, why do we not own them? Why were they given away?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, it’s a very, very—

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I’m waiting for silence so that I can hear the answer.

Please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, again, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition on this important topic. I’m going to try to be as clear as I possibly can. In winter 2012-13, the Ministry of Transportation, working our area maintenance contractors, added 55 pieces of equipment. In winter season 2013-14, we added another 50 pieces of equipment across the province of Ontario. And in the year since the Auditor General’s report, we’ve added—I think it’s in the neighbourhood of 37 plus 16, so another 53 pieces of equipment that we’ve added. So, in total, from winter 2012-13 until today, we’ve added 158 pieces of equipment across the province of Ontario.

Like all of the equipment that’s deployed, both that which we’ve added since 2012 and that which existed with all of our area maintenance contractors—of course, we work with our contractors to make sure that equipment is out on the roads and highways of the—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Straight from the Auditor General’s report, the total cost to the ministry of additional units of equipment negotiated with the contractors was $15 million a year. And again, I repeat, yesterday the government said that they never purchased a new piece of equipment.

This Liberal government has a history of not asking for receipts when they give away millions of dollars. Did the minister here do the same thing the Minister of Education did? Did the contractors give them receipts, pictures? Has he even seen the vehicles or did the minister just hand over millions of dollars? What did you do?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, it’s a little bit difficult for me to understand exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to get at here. Again, I’ll be very clear. Going back over the last couple of years, we have now added cumulatively—both prior to the auditor’s report and since—158 pieces of equipment.

What happens with the way that our contracts are structured is that we effectively pay our contractors for service. They are required to fulfill their equipment complement to provide that service, which means that we pay a contract price to the contractor and they, in turn, purchase or lease the equipment itself to satisfy what’s required. There is nothing that should be confusing about this, but fundamentally, we are delivering—

Interjections.

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

Do you have a wrap-up, please?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I was saying, Speaker, 158 new pieces of equipment across all of Ontario since winter 2012-13, which, working with our contractors, means that we’ll continue to provide the winter maintenance program.

I’m happy to have a conversation with the leader off-line if he wants a better understanding of why he’s confused about this topic.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier, since the Minister of Transportation won’t answer a simple question: The Auditor General was able to show us that the government paid $1.7 million to buy 13 pieces of equipment for the lowest bidder on a $700,000 contract.

We’ve now learned that four similar road maintenance contracts have failed, so the government spins this by denying they bought any new equipment. But then they say they gave money to these companies to buy new plows. It wasn’t a loan, grant or subsidy; it was simply trying to hide the government’s failures.

Mr. Speaker, will the government ask to be repaid for the equipment or will the equipment be returned? You can’t simply give the money away and see no proof for it. What will the government do?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Transportation will want to, once more, answer the detailed question that the Leader of the Opposition is asking. But at the base of this question should be a concern about keeping our roads in Ontario the safest in North America, which is what they are. Year after year—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Actually, Mr. Speaker, year after year, our roads are among the safest in North America, at the top or first or second. The standards that we have in place are the highest possible. We work—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We work with the contractors, and I would think the Leader of the Opposition would want to see new equipment where it’s necessary, would want to see that equipment deployed, in order to keep those high standards in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: In 2009 the Liberal government decided to switch the procurement process. Regardless of whether they had the equipment to do the job, the lowest bidder got the deal. Then the government would bail them out if they didn’t have equipment. As a direct result of this switch, Ontarians’ lives were put at risk. That’s what this is about. In an effort to cover their tracks, the Liberals handed out millions of dollars’ worth of vehicles.

Will the Liberals switch back to the PC model of contracting winter road maintenance before they have to bail out another company with taxpayer dollars?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: The Premier, in her answer just a second ago, cited a statistic that’s very important for everybody to remember. Over the last 13 years, Ontario’s roads and highways have ranked first or second across all North American jurisdictions for safety.

Prior to the Auditor General coming in to do her investigation, the Ministry of Transportation had already embarked on adding equipment and improving the winter maintenance program. Since the auditor released her recommendations, all eight of them have been accepted by the ministry.

We continue to work with our contractors. We’re adding equipment, we’re improving service and we’re giving people the service that they expect and deserve.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: We don’t need a snow job from the Minister of Transportation. Under Progressive Conservative standards, road-clearing times were down to a little over two hours. When the Liberals switched to “the lowest bidder wins the contracts,” road-clearing times more than doubled. In fact, six of the 20 contract areas didn’t even meet the generous and lenient provincial standards.

In typical fashion, this government tried to throw money at their problem, without a real solution. Well, I have a solution. Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, why won’t the government return to the PC procurement model that kept roads clear and Ontarians safe?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It is regrettable but I guess not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition would decide to spout off corny slogans and play a little bit of politics with an important issue.

What I’ve said consistently over the last number of months is that this Premier and this government, accepting all eight recommendations that were released by the auditor, are moving forward. We are deploying, in conjunction with our contractors, more equipment. We have more liquid and materials out there on our highways, and everybody is ready to take on the winter season that we find ourselves in right now.

Again, I would stress that over the last 13 years here in the province of Ontario, our roads and highways, through all seasons, have ranked first and second across North America for safety. It doesn’t mean that our work ends; it means that we keep working hard with our contractors, with our municipal partners, with all communities to make sure we deliver highway maintenance—winter, fall, summer and spring—that the people of Ontario deserve.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier needs to come clean with Ontarians and tell them where the money from the sell-off of Hydro One is actually going. First, she said she’s using that money for infrastructure; now, her fall economic statement says the government is using that money for a one-time improvement in the deficit numbers. Will the Premier and her government be breaking the promise that they made to Ontarians to build transit, just so they can balance the budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows full well that the money that we will realize by broadening the ownership of Hydro One is being invested in transportation infrastructure. She knows that.

She knows that the projects that are being built around the province are critical to the communities in this province and she knows that there is more that needs to be done, whether it’s roads, whether it’s bridges in our northern and rural communities, whether it’s waste water systems or whether it is transit projects.

I will say to the leader of the third party that I would have thought, given that the Paris conference is going on right now and there’s a global conversation about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that she would have been supportive of the investment in transit infrastructure that will help us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and will help us to develop innovative technology that we can export to the world so that we can work to save this planet.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, selling Hydro One is short-sighted. It doesn’t build transit; it leaves people paying more and it puts the brakes on job creation in this province.

The fall economic statement says, “The province’s total revenue projection ... is $1.2 billion higher than the 2015 budget forecast. This increase largely reflects ... the recent Hydro One initial public offering.” But then the minister stood up in this Legislature and said, “We are not relying on assets in order to manage our deficit.” Well, which is it?

My question is simple. When this government continues to say one thing and do the other, how can Ontarians trust what they’re saying about the sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have been very clear that we were broadening the ownership of Hydro One as part of a plan to have the revenue to be able to invest in infrastructure. We’ve been very clear about that. We ran on it and it was part of our budget.

We are now implementing that plan and we have been very, very clear that we understand the need for investment in infrastructure across this province—quite frankly, the need for investment in infrastructure across the country, but Ontario has put forward a plan that will allow us to do our part.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the third party wants to encourage people to make assumptions about hydro rates, about electricity rates, that simply are not the case. The fact is that the Ontario Energy Board, which sets rates now, will set rates after the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One. She knows that, Mr. Speaker, and she knows we need those investments in infrastructure.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Whether it’s the more than half a billion dollars in debt retirement charges that didn’t retire debt but instead just disappeared, or Hydro One dollars that the Liberals are counting once for infrastructure and a second time against the debt, I can’t blame Ontarians for losing trust that this government has their best interests at heart.

Will the Premier and her government take a step towards rebuilding the trust of Ontarians and commit to not sell any more of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I think the fact that the Trillium Trust exists, that the funds from the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One will go into the Trillium Trust and that that money will be invested in infrastructure is exactly the kind of transparency that we promised to the people of Ontario, and that we are delivering.

But there are people in every community in this province, not just the municipal leaders, not just the elected officials, but the people living in communities, who know that they need investment in the infrastructure in their communities. They know that the roads, the bridges and the transit in their communities are inadequate. They know that in their municipalities they do not necessarily have the resources to make those investments.

So they look to the provincial government and they look to the federal government to work with their municipal leaders to make those investments. That’s what we’re doing. That kind of infrastructure investment has the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, when we talk about transit, and providing economic development in communities.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Liberals insist that selling off Hydro One will painlessly pay for transit, but the independent FAO says it won’t raise the money that the Liberals insist it will. The FAO says that it will leave this province in worse shape than it is today, losing money that could be invested in health care, education and all kinds of other important programs. Can this Premier explain why this government thinks that the FAO is wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to comment on that report. But the leader of the third party knows full well that the FAO said we were on track to reduce our deficit, to eliminate our deficit, and in fact, didn’t take into account the revenues from the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One.

We are on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. We are investing in infrastructure; there’s building going on around the province. There will be more building because the needs are great. We are still catching up, and we know that if we don’t make those investments, we will not be competitive and our communities will not be competitive in an economy that is global. So we’re going to make those investments in order to make sure that Ontario is as competitive as it can be on the global stage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier knows or ought to know that the FAO in fact said the opposite and this province will be in worse financial shape in the long run. That’s what the FAO said. He said that selling off a revenue-generating asset in order to pay for transit is the worst way to fund infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

But yesterday, the Minister of Finance insisted that selling Hydro One would “make more value for the province of Ontario.” The FAO says, “the province’s budget balance would be worse than it would have been without the sale.” Can the Premier explain why people should believe the Liberals instead of the independent Financial Accountability Officer for this province?

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: The FAO says the following: He acknowledged that our plan to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18 is achievable. He goes on to say that in both 2013 and 2014, program spending was $1.2 billion lower each year than the original budget projection. He further states, “As a result, it is reasonable to expect the government will continue ... to manage program spending for 2015-16 below the original budget plan projection.”

He recognizes that the work that’s being done, as well as optimizing our assets for reinvestment into our economy, will produce other revenues, and he recognizes that what we are doing now is achievable. He also states, by the way, that asset repurposing is not what’s being depended upon in terms of balancing the budget. He says that as well.

The member of the third party is wrong in her assessment. We are doing what’s necessary to reinvest in our economy and produce new assets.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this is not simply a game of cut-and-thrust in question period. It is about the people of Ontario, people who are worried about whether or not they’re going to be able to have their jobs going forward, worried about whether they’re going to be able to pay their bills this year, and what they’re going to do each and every year that private shareholders push those bills up and up. They’re worried about whether they can trust anything they actually hear from this government across the way.

Will the Premier show good faith to the people of this province, the people of Ontario, the 185 municipalities that have told them to stop the sell-off, the 80% of Ontarians who have said, “Stop the sell-off”? The chamber of commerce is worried about the impact of the sell-off on business in this province. Will she do the right thing and stop any further sell-off of shares of Hydro One?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: Ontario’s unemployment rate is down to 6.8%, below the national average. It was this party that provided indexing to the minimum wage, which that member opposite voted against. We have produced real jobs—560,000 real jobs, net new jobs, since the recession.

Furthermore, we are investing. We have investments concurrently under way. The member opposite—I’m not sure what she would cancel. Is it the Hamilton LRT where she lives? Is it the GO expansion in Kitchener where her opposition—

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to see that one day.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Is it the expansion of the Sudbury region? Is it the high-speed rail from London to Windsor that’s being proposed right now? Is it the realignment of Highway 7 in Kitchener and Guelph?

We need to understand what it is the member opposite would cancel if we don’t do what we’re doing to repurpose our assets and reinvest in the very projects that are necessary for our economy.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Gerry Lougheed Jr. is supposed to have another court date today in his role in the Sudbury by-election bribery scandal. I’m not going to ask about that because I don’t need the government House leader to tell me that he can’t answer because it’s before the courts. But there is so much more at play.

According to the Globe and Mail’s Adrian Morrow, prosecutors agonized for months over whether to advise police to go ahead with charges against Pat Sorbara. It’s not as clear as the government likes to make it out to be. Whether what Ms. Sorbara did was illegal we may never know, but we certainly know it was unethical and immoral.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Steve Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering how hard it was for the Premier to disregard her integrity by supporting Sorbara in the alleged bribery?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite understands that I have answered many, many questions on this subject in the House and outside of the House. He also knows that there is a case before the courts, and I have no further comment to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Again to the Premier: Gerry Lougheed Jr. is still on trial. I know it’s before the courts. Pat Sorbara is still under investigation for violations of the Election Act. I know it’s an ongoing investigation. We’ve talked about those things endlessly, but something we don’t talk often enough about is what happened on February 20. That’s the day the Premier marched into this building and threatened the opposition. She tried to silence us by accusing both parties of quid pro quo arrangements and trading seats for jobs, but we didn’t waver, because someone in this building—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order. The members will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You won’t know when I’m going to hit.

Please finish.

Mr. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, that didn’t waver us, because someone in this building has to have some integrity.

That being said, what is the Premier more embarrassed about: trying to intimidate the opposition to drop the issue, her deputy chief of staff still being under investigation, or the fact that a senior Liberal operative is in court today on corruption charges?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’ve noticed a trend. When the opposition decides to talk about things that should not be discussed in this Legislature, it’s always when they have nothing to talk about. Instead of talking about climate change and how we’re going to fight climate change, instead of talking about building public infrastructure, especially public transit across the province, they choose to speak about issues—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Clearly, when they have nothing substantive to talk about, issues that are important to the people of the province, they choose to talk about issues that are before the courts, which they know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing and the member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: They continue to talk about issues that really do not advance the progress—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —in our province by ensuring that we tackle the issues around climate change, by ensuring that we’re building Ontario up by investing in our communities, because they have no concrete, no positive ideas whatsoever.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: So therefore—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, you’re warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s unfortunate that the official opposition continues to focus on issues that are within the purview of the courts and that should not be discussed in this Legislature, instead of focusing on things that matter to—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. First we learned that Ontario families were subsidizing the Hydro One IPO to the tune of three million bucks. The fall economic statement showed that the public subsidy for the sell-off has ballooned to $63 million. How much more will Ontario families have to pay because of this government’s short-sighted decision? How much more?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, I didn’t expect that the official opposition—the PCs—would ask a question about climate change, because even though the Leader of the Opposition says that he got into politics because he has a social conscience, I didn’t expect that. But I did expect that somewhere in the leadoff question, or in the first three questions, the NDP might ask a question about climate change.

There’s a very important conference going on in Paris right now. Leaders from around the world are there to try to forge an agreement that is going to allow the jurisdictions on this planet to work together to make sure that we don’t increase the temperatures on this planet above two degrees. But there is no question coming from the NDP—shockingly, Mr. Speaker, given that they purport to have a conscience about things environmental.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

One sentence.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In fact, the assumption underlying the questions that the NDP are asking—that we shouldn’t be investing in infrastructure—actually works against the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have to say that the use of the issue of climate change as a shield for this disgusting action on the government’s

part is reprehensible.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier’s powerful friends are getting all the benefits from the Hydro One sell-off, but we are paying the bills. There’s a question of fairness about who gets the benefits and who pays the costs, because on top of the $63 million that we’re paying to subsidize the IPO, Ontario is going to lose $500 million a year from that sell-off—$500 million a year. Last year alone, Ontario received about $750 million from Hydro One. Now we’re giving it up.

On top of losing steady revenues, how much more will Ontarians be paying to subsidize the sell-off if the government sells the rest?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member of the third party knows that the costs are being recovered through the IPO. He knows that the way that rates are set now is the way that rates will be set at the conclusion of this.

But I would suggest to the people of Ontario that in fact this member, who is a self-proclaimed environmentalist, is actually using the discussion about Hydro One as a shield—as a shield—against the fact that the NDP has no interest in talking about climate change, has no interest in talking about the future of this planet and has no plan to deal with those realities.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re risking a warning.

New question.

Taxation

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Our government has a strong record of supporting Ontario’s 444 municipalities. We believe it’s important to have a strong working relationship with our municipal partners. That’s why, when we came into power, we reversed the costly—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Where’s the climate change question? Where’s your climate change question? Come on, Speaker, I was waiting for a climate change question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay, come to order.

Finish, please.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: That’s why, when we came into power, we reversed the costly downloads to municipalities by the former PC government. As a result of the combination of provincial uploads and other supports, Ontario municipalities are receiving a combined benefit of more than $3.7 billion in 2015 alone.

Recently, there’s been speculation about whether our government will be giving municipalities the option to put forward a municipal land transfer tax which is currently only active in Toronto. Speaker, there has been lots of confusion and misinformation on this matter. It’s one that Ontarians feel strongly about.

Through you, would the minister please provide some clarity on the province’s position on expanding land transfer tax powers to other municipalities?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, I sure will, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you and thank the honourable member from Cambridge, a great MPP.

The province has a strong record, as the member noted, of supporting and working with municipalities to ensure that they’re able to provide the services that their communities need.

We consulted with a wide range of stakeholders during our Municipal Act review period that ended October 31. We are currently reviewing that feedback and can tell you there has been no call at all for a municipal land transfer tax, nor is there any legislation before the House that would allow this, nor has it been our intent, based on our extensive consultation, to introduce legislation to put in place a municipal land transfer tax. Let me be clear: There will be no extension of the ability to have a land transfer tax to any municipality—

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

Interjections.

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

While I have your attention, I find that this place could use a little reminder that the debates tend to escalate when we do not do the rules or follow the protocols that we have got in place that are very useful. The one I will remind you of—and I will probably start ramping up my expectations of all the members—is that you do not call members by anything else other than their title or their riding. I don’t need editorials. We can elevate this together, or if you want me to do it, it will not be joyous.

Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the minister for this answer and his thoughtful consideration of this issue. I know my constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries and constituents across Ontario will be pleased to hear that we will not be expanding the land transfer tax powers to other municipalities, to reflect what we heard during the review of the Municipal Act.

With that being said, I know that local governments have the closest relationship to the people in their communities. They provide front-line services like public transportation, garbage collection and recycling, and recreational facilities. All Ontarians want strong, vibrant communities where they can live, work and raise families.

I know that during the review of the Municipal Act, you travelled across Ontario and met with municipalities to discuss a variety of issues. Speaker, through you, will the minister please share with this House what issues were discussed as part of the review of the Municipal Act?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, now that I’ve been absolutely clear about the land transfer tax, I’m delighted to answer the second part of the question.

When we consulted with municipalities, we asked specifically whether there was sufficient accountability and transparency in their actions, whether municipalities have the powers and tools to deliver services effectively, like transit and waste diversion, and what barriers municipalities face to achieving financial stability. These are all important issues that our government takes very seriously, as do our municipal partners.

Our government is already taking action to help municipalities to receive more money to pay for transit services and waste diversion with the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, known as Bill 73. If passed, this important piece of legislation will help communities grow and pay for the important public services that they deliver to their people every single day.

Energy policies

Mr. Jack MacLaren: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. We are all shocked by the bad news from Hornepayne, where the Haavaldsrud sawmill has announced they will be shutting down and laying off all 200 employees because they have not been able to secure a contract from the Ontario government for their cogeneration plants. These layoffs will have a devastating effect on the town of Hornepayne because they represent 50% of the total employment in the community and they come just before Christmas.

Forestry is the second-largest industry in Ontario. The industry suffered a massive downturn in 2008, resulting in a loss of 50% of the forestry jobs in Ontario. Recently, there has been an increase in demand for wood products, which represents hope for a turnaround in the industry. This bad news could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in Hornepayne. Mr. Speaker—

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

Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. I know that the Minister of Energy will want to weigh in on this, and I will refer the supplementary to him.

The member is right that forestry suffered a significant downturn in 2005-06. In fact, the downturn suffered by this particular industry was a precursor to the greater recession that came in 2008.

I would remind this member and all members in the House that it was because of that downturn in 2005-06 that this government put in place an incredibly broad base of support programs for this particular industry. In fact, the broad base of supports and programs that we put in place totalled somewhere in the order of magnitude of $1.3 billion.

Speaker, I can tell you that even with this particular partner in the industry, we’ve provided specific supports of a very significant nature to this particular industrial player. We continue to work with them on this, we’re aware of the issue and, as I’ve said earlier, I know that the Minister of Energy will add some more information on this particular situation in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is the energy policies of this government that have precipitated the problems in Hornepayne, as they have in other communities all across northern Ontario and all across Ontario. Until you make the changes—and I ask the Minister of Natural Resources to stand with your cabinet colleague and fight for jobs in the north by getting your cabinet to reverse the disastrous energy policies that have sent prices through the roof. That is why this company hoped to mitigate some of the damage by selling some electricity back to the province. Now you’ve shut them off on that.

Will you stand today and say, “I’m in favour of keeping jobs in the north,” and talk to your energy minister to reverse these disastrous policies?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Natural Resources? Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to compliment the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, who has made representations in a professional way. We’ve had an ongoing dialogue and he has shown tremendous concern for this issue. We are working towards a solution, but the bottom line is that the power purchase contract which the operator has in hand right now is not economically viable. They’re asking for a higher purchase price, which will put pressure on prices. Notwithstanding that, we’re asking all of the participants who are engaged and impacted by this to try to come up with a solution. We are mildly optimistic that we can come up with a solution.

In terms of advocacy from the opposition, rather than yelling and screaming, as we’ve just heard, I want to compliment the member from Manitoulin for the effort that he has made in working with us towards a solution.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are people who have been warned in this House.

New question.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question today is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in the Attorney General’s scathing report on your privatized winter maintenance contracts, we learned that your government spent millions of dollars to buy equipment for companies you had awarded contracts to, like DeAngelo Brothers in Sudbury. Now those contracts are failing.

My question for you is a simple one: What will happen to the equipment your government spent millions of dollars to purchase now that those contracts have been cancelled?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would remind the member that props are not allowed to be used in the House. If it happens again, it will be taken.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Niagara Falls for the question. I tried to explain this earlier to the official opposition. In the case of, for example, the Kenora contract, which both the government of Ontario and Transfield, the former contractor that had responsibility for the Kenora contract, as an example—when both parties mutually agreed a number of months ago to end the contract in question, we then went out to procurement and awarded that contract area for this winter season to another company that is in the Kenora area and that actually has more pieces of equipment out being deployed over the course of this winter season versus what took place last winter season.

The way that our area maintenance contracts work with regard to the pieces of equipment is that the government of Ontario is actually purchasing a service from the contractors, not individual pieces of equipment. We don’t buy the equipment; the contractor purchases or leases the equipment and we pay for the service that that equipment will provide to the people, in this case, of Kenora, or in the case of Sudbury.

The contractor is required to—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: The concern was that last year you awarded the contracts to companies that didn’t have the equipment to provide the safety that the residents of Ontario should have had. People were injured and died on our roads in the province of Ontario.

Minister, you can talk all you want about following the recommendations of the Auditor General’s report, but the fact of the matter is this: Your government awarded winter maintenance contracts to companies that didn’t have the proper equipment and knowingly had the residents of Ontario drive on unsafe—unsafe—roads last winter, and Ontario continues to pay that price.

Minister, I will ask you again: Who will own the equipment that the people of Ontario spent millions of our hard-earned dollars to purchase now that these contracts have been cancelled?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member from Niagara Falls for his question. There seems to be a little bit of confusion with respect to how the contracts work.

Whether we’re talking about the existing, ongoing contracts or we’re talking about additional equipment that’s brought to bear—just to be clear on that, since 2012-13, 158 pieces of additional equipment have been deployed across the province of Ontario. Whether we’re talking about the existing contracts or the additives, the additions on top of those contracts for equipment, the contractors purchase or lease the equipment. We pay them for the service that that equipment will deliver.

In each of the cases, again, we followed all eight of the auditor’s recommendations. We have, since 2012-13, deployed, with our contractors, 158 additional pieces of equipment.

Water quality

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, millions of people around the world continue to suffer from an inadequate supply of clean and safe water. According to the World Health Organization, “Almost one billion people around the world lack access to an improved supply of clean water,” and more than 50 countries continue to report cases of cholera and other diseases as the result of dangerous contaminants and pollutants in their drinking water. That is why it is imperative that our government continues to make investments in water technology that will ensure people have access to clean and safe water.

Minister, can you inform the members of the House on how our government is supporting Ontario companies to commercialize technologies that will have a meaningful impact for people all around the world?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member from Barrie for that very good question. Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of investing in clean water technologies that will benefit both the people of Ontario and people around the globe. That’s why investing in water technologies is a core pillar of Ontario’s innovation agenda, and a key area of its strategic focus and investments. With 22,000 people working in 900 companies across the province of Ontario, I’m proud to say that Ontario has emerged as a global leader of water technologies.

Since 2003, our government has committed nearly $50 million in funding to more than 100 water-related projects that will benefit people around the world. My ministry will continue to support the development and commercialization of new and innovative water technologies through research and commercialization funding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It is reassuring to know that our government recognizes the social and economic benefits of investing in water technologies. I understand that the global market for water technologies is estimated to be $557 billion, doubling to $1 trillion in 2020.

I often hear about the positive impact that Ontario’s water tech companies are having around the world, thanks to the investments that have been made by our government. Minister, I know that Ontario has led a number of successful international missions that have helped create new partnerships with other jurisdictions who are leaders in the water sector. Minister, can you inform the members of the House on how our government is growing Ontario’s water sector through these investments and international missions?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank the member for that very good question. Through Ontario’s Water Sector Strategy, our government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Ontario remains a globally recognized leader for water technologies. That’s why my ministry invested $6.5 million in WaterTAP, an organization that is helping grow globally competitive companies and has emerged as Ontario’s water champion.

Just recently, the Premier was in California to promote the innovative solutions that Ontario companies can offer to tackle the ongoing water issues in California. Our government has also signed an MOU with Jiangsu province in China on clean water technologies.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry will continue investing in innovative technologies that will give Ontario companies a competitive edge in the global water sector.

Trucking safety

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Over the last few months, we’ve seen a rash of tragic fatal accidents involving trucks that continue to raise concerns over this minister’s commitment to public safety on Ontario roads.

Today’s Toronto Star report indicating that would-be truckers are headed out of the GTA traffic to “easy pass” testing facilities for their licences only heightens those concerns. Given the tragic toll that trucking accidents have had on our roads, it’s the minister’s responsibility to ensure truckers are tested to standards that meet Ontario highway traffic demands.

Can the minister tell us why so many GTA truck drivers, who will be driving in the GTA, are getting their licences in Bancroft and Clinton?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his question. Of course, he knows, everyone here knows—I say this repeatedly—that ensuring roads and highways here in the province of Ontario remain safe for all road users is perhaps my top priority, certainly one of my most important priorities. Again, I said this earlier today, for the last 13 years, ranked first or second in North America is the province of Ontario.

Having said that, the work at the Ministry of Transportation in terms of making sure we deliver that outcome for the people of Ontario doesn’t stop at any point in time. It’s why a number of months ago I made a commitment on behalf of the government that we would introduce mandatory entry-level training for AZ drivers. That’s a project we continue to work on with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I anticipate that we’ll begin to roll out that program in summer 2016. We will also take a look at the issue that’s been raised in the Toronto Star today.

I look forward to working with that member and members on all sides of this House to make sure we continue to enhance our road and highway safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the minister: Over a year ago, this minister promised us he would do something about unprepared truckers being licensed to drive on our roads. That was after it was revealed that provincial truck testing facilities weren’t even taking potential truckers onto the 400 series of highways, as they were mandated to do. Today we learned that not only are truckers not learning on the 400 series, they’re earning licences on traffic-light rural roads. It’s been over a year and this minister fails to get the urgency of the need to have properly tested truckers on our major provincial highways.

Will the minister tell us when he will finally begin to take these very real issues of public safety on Ontario roads seriously?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the follow-up question. He knows, as well as everyone else in this House, that everyone on this side of the Legislature takes these issues very seriously. I mentioned just a moment ago in my initial answer that we will roll out, working closely with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, mandatory entry-level training for potential AZ licensees, truck drivers, by summer of next year. We’ll continue to work with everybody who provides in this particular realm.

Speaker, I should point out, in addition to the fact that over the last 13 years Ontario has ranked first or second across North America for highway safety generally speaking, on the issue of truck drivers specifically, since 1993, there has been a 79% increase in the number of large trucks used in Ontario. In that same period of time, there has been a reduction of 50% of the number of large truck fatalities that have taken place in the province of Ontario. It doesn’t mean that our work ends, but it means that the track record we have is strong and we will continue to build on that going forward.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. One month ago, we learned there are almost 16,000 kids waiting for essential ABA/IBI therapies in Ontario. The Premier and her government have had a month to take action to help families and kids who are languishing on the wait-list. In fact, when the Premier was running for the Liberal leadership, she said, “Every Ontarian with autism deserves our support, and has mine.”

Families and kids with autism are reaching out to me and telling me that they feel hopeless and certainly don’t have this government’s support. Families are being forced to remortgage their homes; they are moving to other provinces just to get the support that their children need.

Will the Premier commit today to immediately ending the chronic wait-list for ABA/IBI therapies in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for this very important question. We know that the prevalence of autism is increasing in Ontario. It’s gone from one in 100 children to one in 68 today, and that’s why we’ve been increasing our investments in autism services to $190 million annually.

We know that more has to be done. I, as Minister of Children and Youth Services, am equally concerned about wait-lists. However, it is important to note that while kids are on wait-lists, there are supports available. There’s a range of services, whether it’s speech and language, rehab services, respite services, mental health services. We continue to support families and we know there’s more to be done; and I’ll be pleased to speak further about it in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to go back to the Premier again. On my desk today, I have letters from the DiMambro family in my community of Hamilton and from the Onofrio family in Whitby that are directed at the Premier. These letters are heart-wrenching. In the words of one parent with a non-verbal child with autism, “By denying my son therapy, you are taking away from his voice—his only way to communicate with the world that is different from him.”

The Premier must acknowledge her failure on this file. This government should not be balancing the books on the backs of families and children with ASD. Will the Premier commit to responding personally to each of these letters that I’m going the deliver to her from parents and kids with ASD?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think it’s important to acknowledge that probably many of us in this Legislature have received letters from families who have children who are experiencing autism. We all do our best to respond to that and support these kids as we go forward. I want to assure the member opposite and actually correct something she said earlier: I want to assure this House that the number of children receiving IBI and ABA has increased in the last two years; it has not decreased.

The total number of children receiving IBI has increased by 4.5%—I know we need to do more, Speaker—and the number of children receiving ABA has increased. These are the correct numbers, and it’s very important that we frame these numbers properly, not using the point-in-time data that the third party has used.

We will continue to improve our services for children with autism. That’s my priority. I’m looking forward to bringing more to this House on the autism strategy.

Manufacturing jobs

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Too many critics have been talking down our manufacturing sector, yet the reality is that manufacturing has been growing steadily since the recession in Ontario, and with good reason, as manufacturing firms count on our skilled workforce, our climate of innovation and our streamlined business environment to encourage global trade.

Now Ontario is one of the global leaders in advanced manufacturing. Perhaps this, and the advanced manufacturing program at Sheridan College in my riding, which is a state-of-the-art advanced manufacturing program, is helping.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What else is our government doing to support Ontario manufacturers in this precarious global situation?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What a timely question, considering that the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters are here in the Legislature today. Jayson Myers, president, and Ian Howcroft, VP Ontario, are in the building and will be meeting with members and will be having a reception later on. I think what they would tell us today in this Legislature is that manufacturing has continued to grow since the global recession and that we have to stop talking down manufacturing and start talking it up because it’s growing in Ontario and making exciting strides.

This government is working in partnership with our manufacturing sector. Our accelerated capital cost allowance is incenting them to reinvest in their plants and reinvest in their equipment, saving them to the tune of $290 million, which is providing them with the incentive they need to do that. We’re also participating in partnerships when it comes to business support programs.

My time is running out. I’ll respond to that more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Ontario is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the future of manufacturing due to our ICT strengths. But our strengths lie beyond what the minister has already mentioned. For example, Ontario is among the top jurisdictions for vehicle production in North America. In 2014, Ontario produced more vehicles than any other subnational jurisdiction in North America, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the province. Also, our manufacturers have benefited from a very successful recent trip to China by the minister, the Premier and other members of this Legislature.

Minister, can you tell us: What are the other ways by which we are ensuring that our manufacturers remain