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

November 17, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Nov-17 (PDF)

L030 - Thu 17 Nov 2016 / Jeu 17 nov 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 17 November 2016 Jeudi 17 novembre 2016

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Access to justice

Hydro rates

By-election in Sudbury

Hydro rates

Automobile insurance

Hate crimes

Tree planting

Hydro rates

Ontario Place

Hydro rates

Student assistance

Road safety

Visitors

Correction of record

Visitor

Answers to written questions

Visitor

Appointment of French Language Services Commissioner

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Start Me Up Niagara

Chapman’s

Hydro rates

World Prematurity Day

Financial literacy

Diabetes

World Pancreatic Cancer Day

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Standing Committee on Estimates

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

School closures

School closures

Privatization of public assets

Sexual violence and harassment

Hydro rates

Accident benefits

Hydro rates

Shingles vaccine

Curriculum

Home care

Hydro rates

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Hydro rates

Private Members’ Public Business

Lebanese Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine libanais

Home Care and Community Services Amendment Act (Dan’s Law), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur les services de soins à domicile et les services communautaires (Loi Dan)

Climate change

Lebanese Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine libanais

Home Care and Community Services Amendment Act (Dan’s Law), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur les services de soins à domicile et les services communautaires (Loi Dan)

Climate change

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the chief whip of the third party, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 70, the Building Ontario Up for Everyone Act (Budget Measures), 2016. The order for second reading of Bill 70 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the day.

Hon. David Zimmer: Government order G—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister, I’d like to acknowledge you first.

The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for acknowledging me, Speaker.

Government order G27.

Orders of the Day

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts and to make other amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à alléger le fardeau réglementaire des entreprises, à édicter diverses lois et à modifier et abroger d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you for acknowledging me as well, Speaker.

Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, is up for debate, and I thought I would put some context at the outset on the need for burden reduction. There are some members in the House who may not have seen this publication. It’s called the pocket edition of Ontario Provincial Offences. I’d like to see if anybody, even any of the Liberal members, has a pocket big enough that the pocket edition fits in. Anyway, I’ve been getting these pocket editions now ever since I was elected—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Excuse me. I need to remind the member that you’re not allowed to bring props into the chamber and showcase that particular item.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): It is.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, I would like to say—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): No, I already ruled. It’s final.

Continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: While I’m speaking about burden reduction, about regulations, this is a government publication about regulations. It’s not meant to be a prop. It’s meant to examine and show how many regulations we have in this province. In the past, I’ve been able to demonstrate just how many regulations we have in this province. I do have the 2017 edition in my Perth office; it’s even larger.

Maybe the Chair is reconsidering that decision. However—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member knows I’ve already ruled; that’s the first thing.

Secondly, that particular item on your desk is fine. But the way you present it to the members and to the television, it’s now considered a prop. Okay?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I wasn’t challenging—I thought—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, I’m just explaining. There was no intention to challenge. I thought there had been some discussions going on.

Anyway, we go back. So I can refer to this: 400,000 regulations we have in this province. The book that I have for 2017 is even larger than the one for 2016. We need to get deeper and deeper and bigger and bigger pockets in this province to satisfy the Liberal government’s burden reductions, obviously.

But Chair, this is a step in the right direction, Bill 27. It at least recognizes that there is a need to reduce the regulatory burden in this province. However, one must examine and see if this is a sincere and genuine attempt to reduce the regulatory burden or if it is just for optics.

I’ve gone through the bill. The bill is 158 pages. It amends 50 statutes. In my reading of the bill, it’s not that it’s reducing regulatory burden, but shifting the regulatory burden. So, a step that is required now that must be done to the minister—the same step is required but now it can be done to a director of that ministry. The burden actually doesn’t change in substance, just in optics.

If we are sincere about reducing the regulatory burden, let’s just take a look at our own actions in this House since the start of this session in September. In two months we now have, I believe, over 70 pieces of legislation on the order paper in this House—in two months. And remember, in those two months, we’ve also had two weeks off for constituents, for Thanksgiving and for Remembrance Week. But we’ve still managed to introduce over 70 new bills. One would think that in a province so highly regulated, the most highly regulated in the country, that—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: That’s not true.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, it is true. The member from Barrie may not think it’s true—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Kitchener.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Oh, from Kitchener; pardon me. The member from Kitchener may not think it’s true, but we have the greatest regulatory burden in the country. If we weren’t so heavily regulated, member from Kitchener, why are they reducing the regulatory burden, or appearing to, or at least bringing a bill forward to do so?

Speaker, let me give another example of why I am suspect of the sincerity of burden reduction.

As I mentioned, there are 70 bills in the House. One of those bills is Bill 2, the election financing act. Under that act, it broadens who gets captured under our election financing rules significantly—significantly. Right at the present time, our election financing rules only apply to elected members of the Legislature, but Bill 2 goes out and captures everybody who seeks to be nominated and run in an election for office. So we’re getting more people, and let’s be very clear.

In all those provincial offences, which the provincial offences are a derivative of legislation—provincial offences are a derivative of regulations. The more regulations, the more legislation, the more provincial offences: There’s a correlation there.

Each one of these regulations places an obstacle, a hurdle or a barrier for somebody to do things. We all know that there should be barriers on actions and activities, if they’re harmful, hurtful or injurious to other people. But when we have 400,000 regulations and ever-increasing provincial offences, one must wonder: What else do we capture? Who else and what else are we denying opportunities for and creating undue barriers? I spoke at length in committee on this.

The new rules under Bill 2 will actually prevent people from seeking office. That’s without a doubt. It is such a barrier, such an obstacle, that many people who are not wealthy, well connected or chosen by their political party will not have an opportunity ever to seek office at the provincial level in this Legislature.

We know that Bill 2—the trigger for that was recognizing the abuses that were happening with election financing by Liberal ministers. But now the regulatory burden is not going to be focused on crown ministers or on elected members; the regulatory burden is going to be cast far and wide in a way that actually prevents people from running for office.

This is what we’ve seen so often with this government: Public policy that is advanced not for the betterment of society, public policy that isn’t advanced for the public good, but public policy that is advanced for the Liberal good, for the Liberal benefit—not for the public benefit, and oftentimes, not just for the Liberal benefit but to the detriment of the public. We need to really call out the sincerity of this government when it comes to dealing with regulatory burdens.

We all know. We had a gentleman here not long ago who faced some of the regulatory burden in this province, who is mayor of Trent Hills. His name is Hector Macmillan. The obstacles and the regulations in our health care system meant that he had to leave this province to get a life-saving procedure. Not only did he have to leave this province; he had to leave this country because of our failings here.

Hector is not alone. There are many, many people who are facing those same things. Here’s another one from today in the headlines of the Toronto Sun: “There was no hope for me in Ontario”—a young cancer sufferer has to go to Mexico for treatment. That’s because of a regulatory burden.

The burdens of regulations, of poorly thought-out regulations, impacts everybody in society in many different ways. It impacts the truck driver. We all have received correspondence in our constituency offices about some of these ridiculous regulations that are applied to truck drivers, older drivers. We have seen just so many people—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I know the member from Northumberland gets upset with this, but regardless—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. I’m going to encourage all sides to be respectful of the Speaker today. We need to speak through the Chair. I’m going to encourage the member not to encourage that back and forth.

I return to the member.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ve always been speaking to the Chair, I believe. But I know this gets under the skin of the member from Northumberland.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I withdraw.

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

I return to the member.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Chair. Listen, I understand why this gets under his skin, because these are real-life examples of a government that is complete in their culture of complacency. Their culture of complacency and do-nothing, except for in their own interests, has impacts, such as with Mayor Macmillan, such as with so many people. Remember last year, the tragic case of Laura Hillier? Our history is littered with examples of tragedy as a result of the culture of complacency of this Liberal government.

As I said earlier, Bill 2 is another good example of that, where, in order to try to disperse or dilute their culpability in the cash-for-access scandals, they’re now trying to disperse that responsibility over people who aren’t even elected into this assembly, people who will never be elected but are being caught in the same regulatory trap that this Liberal government is setting for society.

The result, the end, is of course harmful—harmful—not just to this institution but, more importantly, harmful to the public at large as they seek to diminish political participation, democratic representation, but to continue to increase the size of the pocket edition of regulations.

Speaker, think of all the requests our constituency offices get. It’s incredible that, without fail, they’re the result of a government regulation that is poorly thought out. That’s what the result is.

I had a case where an individual, Curtis—

Laughter.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, they might think it’s funny, the Minister of Indigenous Relations, but Curtis Brady is suffering tremendously. He went into the Royal Ottawa hospital—and he has given me permission to use his name here. Curtis Brady admitted himself. He was required to sign a whole bunch of government regulatory forms. Unbeknownst to him, he signed away the power of attorney for his family members and got captured by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. For six months now, he has been trying to revoke the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, but the regulatory barriers are preventing him.

The government has even gone so far as to say, “Curtis, you have to give us 900 bucks before we’ll cancel the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and allow your family members to have power of attorney once again.”

These are tragic, tragic episodes for the people we represent, and here we get smirks and smiles, and the members think that this is all fun and games. But our laws impact people. Our laws ought to impact people in a positive fashion. They ought not to impact people in a negative way, such as Curtis, such as Hector Macmillan.

When we bring in laws that are poorly thought out, when we bring in laws that are only meant to advance a partisan political agenda by the government, we create more Curtis Bradys, we create more Hector Macmillans in those tragedies.

I do think there are some minor improvements in Bill 27, Speaker, but I do not believe that this government has shirked their culture of complacency. I do not believe that they really, sincerely want to see next year’s book smaller. They do not care if there are more Hector Macmillans who have to leave this province to seek medical care, and that’s unfortunate, very unfortunate. I do hope that members of the Liberal government reflect on all those constituents who contact their office who are seeking advice, seeking assistance, and recognize that they must do better to stem the tide of tragedy that they create with their legislative and regulatory burdens.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Good morning, members and Madam Speaker. I want to talk again on the professional engineers who are part of this bill. I want say that the NDP is in favour of cutting red tape, but I’ve got to read this: The Professional Engineers Ontario, PEO, are “dismayed” by the repeal of the reversal of the “industrial exception” proposed in

schedule 2. Then I go further and I read—and this is very disturbing to me and should be disturbing to every single Liberal member over there—it “includes the cancellation of the repeal of clause 12(3)(

a) of the Professional Engineers Act, commonly known as the ‘Industrial Exception.’”

And listen to this, please. I know you guys are reading the papers and doing other things, but please listen. This is important for our industries in the province of Ontario. The exception allows unlicensed employees to design or modify production machinery or equipment used to make a product in their employer’s facility. This is opposed by the professional engineers, and why wouldn’t it be? What the Liberals said yesterday is that it’s only for small design changes. I can tell you: Nowhere in the bill does it say it’s only small equipment. The equipment could be the size of this room in that employer’s workplace.

Yesterday the labour minister said that the number one priority in the province of Ontario is safety. I like that, because I think it should be the number one priority. I think that when people go to work, they should come home and see their family. But what I don’t understand is how you can say that the number one priority is safety when you’re having unlicensed employees design or modify equipment. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and—

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

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Good morning. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Growth, I’m very pleased to stand in this House this morning to once again speak to Bill 27.

As the member opposite, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, mentioned earlier, this bill proposes to make over 150 amendments to more than 50 statutes from 11 ministries. The Burden Reduction Act, if passed, would support Ontario ministries in updating legislation to remove unintended burden on business and to create savings and benefits for both government and external stakeholders. We heard the member opposite speak about the number of regulations and the burden that people often face. What we’re trying to do with this bill is to eliminate that burden.

The amendments included in the bill, while good for business, are intended to ensure that necessary environmental, health and safety standards are maintained or enhanced in Ontario. The bill is the first of annual burden reduction bills, serving as a model to meet a commitment to reduce burdens on Ontario businesses. So, unlike how the member opposite referred to it, this is not just fluff. This is something that our government is committed to, something that on this side of the House we’re committed to ensuring continues moving forward.

This will become an annual process that would provide all ministries with an awareness of and access to a regular and ongoing instrument for future legislative changes, supporting their ministry planning efforts.

Speaker, we are competing in a globally competitive environment, and we need to make sure that we are taking all measures to create a fulfilling environment for our business. The measures included in the proposed Burden Reduction Act, 2016, are just some of the burden reduction activities this government is undertaking.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very glad that we’re here talking about burden reduction because I think that it’s something that all sides of the House agree on. Certainly, you can’t find a business large or small in the province that thinks that we need more regulations. In fact, many businesses are relocating not just because we keep hearing about high hydro costs and other issues—traffic congestion—but they’re also relocating to other jurisdictions just because of all the regulations.

Maybe it’s time for the government to realize that we can’t keep piling on new regulations as new digital equipment and technology become available, and we have to look at new problems that could arise. We have to also look back on some regulations that maybe aren’t that necessary anymore and cut them back, maybe a two-for-one kind of thing where, if we’re adding new regulations, we have to take away at least two other regulations.

I’m reminded of, when we go to the airport, we do screening. It seems like each time we go through the airport, there are more and more screening steps that you have to go through. You wonder if maybe some of the old screening steps aren’t necessary anymore and they should be cutting back. Is this, sometimes, a little bit that politicians, like airport screeners, are often accused of being on some kind of a power trip, controlling people, controlling business and controlling lives? We’ve all had those experiences at the airport—you included, Madam Speaker, I’m sure—where you really questioned the judgment of what was being done over there.

I think that people are concerned and they want to have safe workplaces. They want to know that their roads are being constructed well. They want to know that things are being done properly.

They’re also concerned about their digital privacy, their banking systems, and their rights in general, Madam Speaker. I think that they would really like us to go through some of these other regulations and—a little bit, step by step—justify why these regulations are there.

We’re all reminded of Tim Hudak, who used to say that his daughter would take a few magnets on the fridge and she would invariably spell out, without knowing, some government agency. Too many agencies; too many regulations.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I think what this bill is actually about, when we’re talking about burden reduction for business, is creating a fair business environment, a fair business climate, in the province of Ontario. I have to say that I don’t have a whole lot of confidence.

There are a whole bunch of things, as many members have mentioned, that aren’t covered by this. I wanted to highlight one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen, whether working as CA or as an MPP, and that is the case of Angelina Anderson. Angelina Anderson is a Canadian ex-wife who lives in my riding. She had a former husband who is from the United States. They owned a tourist operation up in far-flung northwestern Ontario. They divorced in 2004. He was abusive. She fled with her children. What has happened is, at that point, she signed over all the documents. Her name is not on the business.

She has nothing to do with the business. Her husband has taken over ownership of the business. He stopped paying Ontario sales tax; he completely stopped. He owes $130,000 to this government.

The government continues to allow him to operate. What they have done, because I guess it’s too difficult to go after an American citizen, is that they have placed that entire $130,000 on this abused ex-wife who is making a living for herself and supporting her children. It is absolutely disgraceful. When we have talked to the Ministry of Finance, they have said, “Well, perhaps she should talk to her ex-husband.” That is not an option. We have court documents that prove that she has nothing to do with this business.

So the response then from the government was, “We don’t recognize those court documents.” This is an absolutely ludicrous situation: that a business can continue to operate, that they don’t even pay sales tax, and this government can’t even collect sales tax. How are they supposed to get the rest of this stuff right? It is absolutely ridiculous.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a privilege for me to rise today to offer some thoughts on Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, 2016, on behalf of the people I represent in London West.

Many members may be aware that southwestern Ontario’s economy is somewhat distinct from other areas of the province. We have a much higher proportion of our economy and our labour force involved in the manufacturing sector. Certainly, burden reduction is critically important for the health of our manufacturing sector.

I actually had the opportunity to attend the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters’ southwestern Ontario dinner that was held in London earlier this year, and I had a really constructive conversation with the director of policy and programs for CME Ontario. He talked to me about some of the things that CME, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, had heard from London businesses who had participated that very day in a focus group.

He passed along some notes from some of the comments that were made during that focus group. He pointed out that there are close to 400,000 regulations that impact the members of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and 1,500 regulations that apply just to the manufacture of automotive parts. He said that businesses who participated in this focus group remarked that they were spending 25% to up to 50% of their time in their business complying with these regulatory requirements. Businesses said that because of this compliance, this regulatory burden that is placed on businesses, they simply didn’t have time to innovate.

Businesses made the point that the government’s responsibility is to provide an environment for businesses to succeed, and that without that kind of environment, there is a risk of an overemphasis on compliance that undermines productivity and undermines innovation.

Certainly, in the context of that discussion, we know that reducing the regulatory burden is essential. It’s essential for businesses in my community. It’s essential for businesses across the province. Bill 27 begins that process. It begins the process of reducing the regulatory burden, as was mentioned. There are 50 acts that are amended, and 17 schedules in the bill. It is one of the thickest bills that I have seen since I have been elected. There are a lot of words in this bill; unfortunately, there’s not really a lot of significant content.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The bill will be thick; the action will be thin.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Exactly. So these 17 schedules—most of them, Speaker, are really housekeeping. They are really not the kind of significant burden reduction that would have an impact in jumpstarting the economy and enabling businesses to expand and grow. We know there are five schedules simply to bring Ontario into line with international commitments, through international conventions or agreements that had been made. There are a number of amendments that are just sort of tweaking of wording; for example,

schedule 13 makes some housekeeping changes to the Protecting Child Performers Act, which was a piece of legislation that was introduced by my colleague the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. And we support those word tweaks. We had wanted those wording changes in the first place, so that’s good to see in this bill.

Unfortunately, Speaker, as has been pointed out by my other colleagues who have already spoken to this legislation, there are not one but two poison pills buried in this thick document. As a result of those poison pills, Speaker—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The old poison pill trick.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yeah, those old poison pills. As a result of those poison pills, the NDP will be unable to support the legislation that is before us today.

I’m going to spend some time elaborating our concerns about those two poison pills.

Schedule 2 of this bill makes some changes to a number of acts that are under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. One of those acts is the Professional Engineers Act. This bill includes a proposal to cancel the repeal of clause 12(3)(

a) of the Professional Engineers Act, a clause that is known commonly as the industrial exception. This exception allows unlicensed employees to design and modify production machinery or equipment that is used to make a product in their employer’s facilities.

In other words, what it does is allow unlicensed individuals, individuals who are not engineers, to do the work that engineers are specifically trained and paid to do. They have the expertise through the years of their education. They have the experience and the knowledge of what needs to be done to protect the public interest and to ensure that the public good is front and centre.

As well as being the MPP for London West, I’m also the NDP critic for research and innovation. In that capacity, I have had many wonderful opportunities to sit down with Professional Engineers Ontario, PEO, to sit down with individual engineers who live in my riding, and I have heard over and over again from those engineers that I have spoken to that they are opposed to this industrial exception; that the industrial exception undermines public safety, it undermines the public interest, and that it should be repealed.

No province in Canada currently has an exception that allows non-engineers to do the work that only engineers are trained to do, and no province, except for Ontario, ever had such an exemption set out in legislation before.

I know that PEO, the professional engineers’ association, welcomed the government’s commitment in 2010 to eliminate this industrial exception that shouldn’t ever have been there in the first place when they passed Bill 68, which was the Open for Business Act. This was an important public policy change that spoke to the professional obligation of professional engineers to ensure that the public interest is protected. Professional engineers recognize that repealing that exception would improve workplace safety, and that is what we are all absolutely committed to doing.

We want to have an Ontario that is safe for workers to work, and repealing the exception could contribute to fewer workplace accidents and more effective and productive workplaces.

I don’t know; I wasn’t here in 2010 when that bill was passed. I don’t know why the government chose not to proceed with the repeal of the exemption after making that commitment in the legislation at the time. I expect and I would hope that there had been some consultation prior to writing that into the legislation. I would hope that writing the repeal into the legislation was based on feedback that had been received that was based on research and evidence. But anyway, I don’t know what happened.

What I do know is that six years later, we now see the Liberal government backtracking on that commitment to repeal the exception. For that reason alone, the NDP would not be able to support the passage of this bill. We cannot support legislation that could jeopardize the safety of workers in the province, and we cannot support allowing this exemption to remain in place that could potentially contribute to workplace accidents and injury—not only that, but the safety of Ontarians when this machinery is modified, or design changes are made, by unlicensed people who don’t have the qualifications and the training that professional engineers do.

I also wanted to talk about the second poison pill in this legislation, and that is

schedule 16. This is the

schedule that opens up Ontario Place Corp. to having the land that is owned by the corporation—to having private interests move in and acquire some of this land.

We know we heard the government protest loudly, saying that was never the intention of this legislation, this schedule, that this is merely boilerplate, and that the government has no intention—we can be assured that the government would never privatize Ontario Place.

Quite frankly, Speaker, it’s hard not to take that with a bit of a grain of salt. I was elected in 2013, and some of the first debates that I participated in were around the privatization of Hydro One. I remember having conversations at home in my riding. We were sounding the alarm. The New Democrats were sounding the alarm that this was what the government was planning to do.

I had conversations back in London West, feeling it was hard to get our alarms through, because people were saying, “The Liberals would never do that.” The Liberals were saying “We would never do that.” And then, lo and behold, after the 2014 election—this was not in the Liberal government’s platform; it was never discussed during that election campaign—the next thing you know, we see that it’s announced that 60% of Hydro One will be put up for sale.

The track record, quite frankly, is troubling. Despite the government’s protestations, we have the obligation, as legislators, to ensure that the public interest is protected. The public interest is not protected by writing legal wording into legislation that opens the doors to the future disposition of property at Ontario Place.

Like many MPPs who are in my age cohort, we remember with fondness when Ontario Place was the tourist attraction in the province. I would have relatives visiting from out of province, from out of country, and the first place we would want to take them to show off our province was Ontario Place. The Cinesphere, that iconic form on Toronto’s waterfront, is much loved by Ontarians, and the notion that this could now be taken over by the private sector is deeply, deeply troubling and is another reason for us to oppose the bill.

There are a couple of issues that are referenced in the bill that, even though we’re not supporting it, it would have been nice to see the government go a little bit further. In particular, I wanted to talk about

schedule 9.

Schedule 9 refers to the classification of employees who work with the Office of the Fairness Commissioner. This is the office that oversees access to regulated professions by internationally educated professionals.

I am sure that I’m not the only MPP in this place who hears regularly from foreign-trained professionals who come to Ontario, who bring high levels of education, who bring incredible skill sets, and yet cannot meet the qualifications in order to enter their profession and practise the skills that they were trained in.

This is a huge loss to our economy and to our communities. It’s unfortunate, when the government is looking at the Office of the Fairness Commissioner, that they decided that reclassifying the employees was the only change they were going to make. There is so much work to do around the Office of the Fairness Commissioner, around the recognition of foreign credentials. That is certainly something that we need to keep our eye on and ensure is addressed in this Legislature.

The other

schedule I wanted to talk about, of course, is

schedule 10 and the amendments to the OEB. Again, this opens the door to a very important conversation about electricity rates in this province. We know that the biggest burden on businesses in Ontario is high hydro costs. It’s the cost of electricity that is really preventing small businesses from their ability to be competitive and to grow and expand.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce just released a report last month. They noted that 33% of small businesses in the province believe that increasing energy prices will have a large impact on their organization, causing them to delay or cancel investment; 38% of small businesses claim that electricity prices are having the greatest impact on their ability to remain competitive.

If we are truly interested in creating an environment that supports businesses, that enables businesses to grow and succeed, we have to do something about skyrocketing hydro rates. We see from this Liberal government an 8% rebate on the HST on hydro bills, after putting back in a 10% increase because of the cancellation of the clean energy benefit. That is not what small businesses are asking for. That is not going to make or break a business’s ability to succeed.

People in this province understand the connection between the privatization of Hydro One and skyrocketing hydro rates. They also understand the connection between the Conservative government, who introduced the process of privatization, the Liberal government, who has taken privatization to heights that the Conservatives probably never dreamed of, and the New Democrat government—not government yet, but the NDP caucus—who has been outspoken and consistent in our opposition to the privatization of our electricity system in the province.

In the minute and a half I have left, I wanted to share an experience of a business in London who wrote to me about another one of the schedules of this bill,

schedule 11, about the EASR. They write, “We are compelled to outline our unfortunate experience with the EASR—the inadequacies of the process, the unprofessionalism of its administration and the lack of fairness in its application.” They were requested to register with the EASR and they were actually recommended by the ministry staff person that they were dealing with that they hire a consultant in order to register.

The notion that this very small business was supposed to hire a consultant in order to complete this registration process is offensive. That, quite honestly, is a huge barrier to business growth in this province.

They say, “Our frustration does not come from compliance with any environmental program that benefits us all, at a price, but to the issue of targeting small business to capriciously increase revenues for cash-strapped government. Does government focus on small business because they have neither the resources nor the time to fight such unfair programs”—

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

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m happy to make a few comments on this. First of all, what’s the premise of Bill 27? Well, the premise of Bill 27 is to make Ontario more competitive in the national economy, in the world economy and in the local economies amongst themselves. So, given that premise, what are we trying to do here?

We want to reduce the regulatory burden; that’s a part of our economic plan to grow Ontario. To the extent that unnecessary rules and regulations and outdated regulations and so on have woven themselves into the fabric of the economy, we want to remove that to free up the creativity and the initiative of the economy.

So what we have done is, the Ministry of Economic Development and Growth has introduced this package of legislative amendments. They will reduce regulatory burdens and practices that cost businesses time and money while also, at the same time, protecting health and environmental standards, and always keeping an eye on workers’ safety. We’re going to do that in a responsible manner that meets all those imperatives; that is, grows the economy, protects the worker, protects the environment and so on.

I want to comment on one really interesting piece in the bill. One of the measures is to modernize government communication with businesses by allowing the electronic submission of documents. So much time is spent by business filling out paper—piles and piles of paper. It’s time that we get caught up with the electronic age, the digital age. So many of these documents that have to be filled out and submitted will be done—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to make a brief comment on Bill 27. I have to point out to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation that, yes, the government has brought in Bill 27, and isn’t it interesting? We’re about 17 months away from a general election here in Ontario, and this government, since 2003, has been absolutely addicted to bringing in new regulations, more regulations than any other regime in the past—bringing in more and more regulations to make life difficult for people and for businesses in this province. Maybe they commissioned a poll that we didn’t know about.

You know the one where 94% of the people think hydro rates are too high? Maybe there was another one on regulation, and they finally got the message that the people are sick and tired of having their lives controlled by this Liberal government and business being put on the brink of bankruptcy by being overregulated by this Liberal government.

All of a sudden now, when we’re on the brink of another provincial election within the next year and a half, they’re coming out with a piece of legislation that they think the people are going to fall for, that all of a sudden the leopard has changed its spots. I say nay; not so, sir. They have not changed their spots at all. This is about putting out a new story, a new Liberal package for 2018 that says, “We’re actually in favour of reducing regulation.” They’re not in favour of reducing regulation; they are in favour of getting re-elected in 2018.

They know they have been on the wrong side of the people for the last 13 years with the way that they have overregulated businesses and individuals in this province, and now they’re finally getting it.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, the member for Ottawa South thinks they’ve won four elections. Well, just a minute. Let’s see what happens in 2018—

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

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I want to remind the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that when I stand, you sit. When I say thank you, you need to stop.

I recognize the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: It is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from London West, who had such thoughtful insight into her analysis of the bill. It’s very much appreciated.

I like how polite she was when asking: Why is it that there is a clause that allows the government to privatize Ontario Place? I remember—I’ve been here for nine years—when the Liberals used to say, “It is the Conservatives who do privatizations. We are Liberals. We are progressive. It’s the Conservatives who privatize hydro.” And then, the minute they get elected—they campaign as New Democrats but really, they govern exactly the same way that the Conservatives did. They kept right on at it, privatizing our hydro system, which leads to a poll that 94% of the people of Ontario find their energy bills too high.

Why are we worried when we hear, “Oh, it’s not our intention to privatize Ontario Place”? Then why do you put a bill that allows you to do this?

I’m working on Bill 41 right now, the Patients First Act. Why is there a clause in patients first that allows privatizations of our community support system if that’s not your intention? Well, I’m sorry: We don’t deal with intention in this place; we deal with the actual words that are written on the actual bill, and the way the bill is written right now opens the door wide open for privatization of Ontario Place, the same way that the Liberals went at it with privatizations of hydro in suit with the privatizations that the Conservatives had done before them.

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

Mr. James J. Bradley: The bill we see before us is a result of considerable consultation with members of the business community and those outside the business community, to ensure that regulations that we have in place are going to be there to protect the safety, the health and the environment of people in our province. Our government has already removed some 80,000 regulations which in years gone by under various governments have been developed for the purpose of protecting the public.

We continue with this particular piece of legislation to bring about modernization, reducing duplicative requirements, synchronization of the “tell us once” approach—which I think is very important—streamlining processes, creating new opportunities, increasing efficiencies and bringing about harmonization.

What we always have to be careful about, when we hear the bleatings of members of the official opposition, is that, remember, it’s Donald Trump and the Republicans and the Conservatives in Canada who are constantly wanting to remove regulations. That’s one of their mantras.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. James J. Bradley: So we remember what happened when they removed regulations in Walkerton. We remember what happened in Walkerton. There are many regulations in this province which are there to assist people right across this province.

Health, safety and labour, for instance—I know there are many of you who would like to see those removed. Our government has taken a very practical approach to the reduction of the burden on business after that consultation, and I think we’ll see continued improvements. We’ve already seen them. We will continue to consult, and I think we’ll have an even better business atmosphere in the province when this bill is concluded in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return back to the member from London West to wrap up.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to thank the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for St. Catharines, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt and also the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their comments. I think the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had a very accurate observation about the number of regulations that are introduced in Ontario

In my experience, one of the most frequent critiques that we have of any piece of legislation that we’re dealing with is that so much of what’s in the bill is left to regulation, so we don’t even get an opportunity to discuss some of the meat of the legislative changes that we are debating, and that is a concern.

When the member for St. Catharines talks about regulations, what’s important is that they be fairly applied, that they be consistent and that they make sense. We, as MPPs, as the duly elected voices of our communities, don’t get a chance to participate in the development of these regulations. We don’t get a chance to analyze the content of these regulations. That is all left to bureaucrats.

My colleague from Nickel Belt talked about the privatization of Hydro One and the reason that we are so concerned about this bill in terms of the potential privatization of Ontario Place. We know that the Conservatives began the process of privatizing our electricity system; the Liberals have taken it to new heights. The citizens of this province do not support the privatization of public assets. We have heard that loud and clear.

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

Hon. Chris Ballard: I will be sharing my time with the member from Kitchener Centre.

I’ve been hearing a lot of specifics, a lot of particular issues with this bill, and that’s all good; that’s all part of healthy debate. I can bring to the table experiences that I’ve had from my business background, things as simple as working with a major manufacturer in my riding. They manufacture massive pressure boiler systems. Most of them are shipped by road to Alberta. Lately, most of them are being shipped by road or by rail to the United States and down to Texas. One of the things they’ve talked to me about over the years is how difficult it is to get their product out of our community.

They have municipal road laws they have to follow, they have regional road laws they have to follow, and they have provincial road laws they have to follow. It’s not something that anyone would generally think about, but when you have a massive structure that may take up a lane and a half in size, getting it from my community to where it needs to go is a major part of the logistics, and it makes it really difficult for them to move product when they have these massive loads.

So one little example from what we’re doing in this bill, in terms of making it easier for oversized loads to be moved from the manufacturer to the rail facility or to the end user—that small change alone will make a significant difference in the ability of the company in my riding to do business more effectively and more efficiently. They will be very happy with that, Madam Speaker. Again, it’s not the sort of thing that the average person would even consider, but that’s the sort of depth that we’re going into in this burden reduction bill, which we hear from manufacturers and we hear from business.

The burden reduction bill, 2016, if passed, would support Ontario ministries in updating legislation to remove unintended burden on business and to create savings and benefits for both government and external stakeholders. I know sometimes, if you’ve not been involved with government at all, you wonder why oftentimes things take a long time to get done. One of the things that you soon learn, whether it’s as a town councillor or as an MPP, is that examination for unintended consequences is absolutely key.

I know that even after a lot of examination and a lot of thinking, unintended consequences happen either at the beginning or just over years as the business environment and the regulatory environment changes. It’s time to look at all of the regulations and legislation and say, “Do we need this anymore? Does it fit with today’s modern world?” I’m pleased to see that there are a number of ways that we’re addressing that in this bill.

Just to go back to the higher level, Speaker, the bill proposes to make over 150 amendments to more than 50 statutes from 11 ministries. This is a significant bill if you’ve got 11 ministries working together on it, I can tell you right now. The amendments included in this bill are good for business, but they’re also intended to ensure the necessary environmental, health and safety standards are maintained and even enhanced across Ontario. Really, the burden reduction bill, 2016, is the first of annual burden reduction bills serving as a model to meet a commitment to reduce burdens on Ontario businesses.

The last such bill, I believe, was passed in 2010. The proposed legislative amendments either demonstrate a reduction of burden on businesses or achieve cost savings for government and external stakeholders.

The cost of savings from the amendments in the bill would build on the government’s success of reducing burden on businesses by $122 million since 2011. I know that, in talking with business organizations out there, while they’re not always happy with what government does at any level, they have lauded the Ontario government for the reduction of red tape that we have brought about in this province over the past number of years.

Some of the key themes of this bill, some of the ones that leap out at me: modernization—supporting the use of electronic communication between corporation shareholders, debt obligation holders and holders of warrants. The old days of needing the Pony Express to move documents around are long gone. We can use electronic signatures now. I’m looking forward to that modernization because, in the businesses that I’ve talked to, the businesses I’ve worked with before, that will streamline how they do business.

Duplicative requirements: eliminating the Bulk Sales Act—it’s out of date. There are new and more effective processes we can call on that will protect business interests. One of the ones that I know drives not just businesses batty but consumers as well is synchronization and the “tell us once” approach. Why do we have to fill in a form, and then, two minutes later, when we’re working with another ministry or another government, have to fill the same information in again? That synchronization will really streamline how business is moving ahead.

Streamlining a number of processes—and I spoke of this at the outset: streamlined delivery of superload permits by eliminating the requirement for police escorts, but ensuring safety by allowing for qualified non-police escorts. I said at the outset that there is one major manufacturer in my riding, and this is probably the single biggest thorn in the side they have of getting their product to market: coordinating their efforts with police, municipal governments, regional governments and provincial ministries in order to get their very expensive, well-manufactured products to market. That’s a very good one there.

Creating opportunities through enacting: There are five statutes in this proposed legislation that we will adopt—internationally recognized rules affecting cross-border business activities that would harmonize Ontario’s business laws with international business laws and make Ontario a more attractive jurisdiction for resolving cross-border disputes. We know that Ontario businesses want to grow. We know that they want to grow outside of Ontario and that they have expertise and products that make them attractive to doing business in other parts of the world and vice versa.

Ontario is a good place to do business, and we are attracting organizations as well. We’ll increase that by adopting these five statutes so that we harmonize Ontario’s business laws with international business laws.

A little bit more about that going forward—I’ll just touch on that briefly. Increasing efficiencies: Businesses and government are always looking for ways to increase how effective and how efficient they are. Allowing provincial inspectors to get the information they need to do the job they need to do for low-risk activities by making a phone call to collect information—the way it is right now, the provincial inspector has to get in the vehicle, they have to go on-site and they have to get the information face to face—very time-consuming, very inefficient, even from the business’s perspective, the business side that is required to pull that information together.

Being able to make a phone call—I suspect that our inspectors are going to be able to make multiple phone calls to multiple businesses where before they might have only gotten to one or two because of the time taken in transportation and moving ahead.

Moving along, Speaker, one of the other areas, as I mentioned before, is Ontario’s business law review. I think it’s one of the most exciting things that this government has been doing and it’s one of the greatest things that’s been going on that no one really knows about.

When I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, I was tasked with sitting in on a couple of the meetings. We had a round table with some of the brightest business lawyers from across Ontario who had volunteered to help advise government on how to streamline and how to internationalize our business law, to make it easier not only for businesses in Ontario—and doing business in Ontario—but to attract business to Ontario: to make Ontario one of the most attractive places, one of the easiest places to establish a business and to carry on business.

I looked at the wealth of talent sitting around these round tables and could only begin to imagine, if they were billing us on an hourly basis, the thousands of dollars that it would cost. But they were there as volunteers, Speaker, giving us some wonderful advice which we have encapsulated in a great report and a lot of which is being adopted. Some of the key points are being worked into this legislation.

Another point that I wanted to touch on is regulatory modernization. It’s one of the key pillars of this bill, and it strengthens our open-for-business mandate in a whole new suite of initiatives. The plan will foster a more innovative and dynamic environment for businesses to grow by lowering business costs in the province through modernizing regulations.

Regulations for the sake of regulations just don’t make any sense. I think that in today’s fast-paced world where things change, the business environment changes, the world is changing, we have to make sure that there is room to change and room to grow.

With those comments, Madam Speaker, I’ll stop now and I’ll pass the floor to the member from Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: While I’m very delighted to join the discussion this morning on the Burden Reduction Act, 2016, I want to share with you that in my riding in Kitchener Centre, we have a flourishing tech sector. We also have advanced manufacturing. Here’s a little-known fact: in Ontario, the number of manufacturing businesses—about 10% of jobs are in manufacturing. But in my riding, it’s double that rate; it’s 20%, so one in five jobs in my region is tied to manufacturing. I mentioned the tech sector, which is exploding at this point.

I often meet with my stakeholders, with business people in my community. They have expressed a great need to see these regulatory practices, the way that they deal with government, be streamlined. That is exactly what this bill is going to do.

I know I don’t have a lot of time this morning. I first of all feel compelled just to respond to some comments that I heard this morning—and I have been listening.

The member for Niagara Falls: He accused us of sitting here reading the newspaper when in fact what we’re doing is looking at our research notes. We’re preparing. So I didn’t really appreciate that comment. I just want to share that with you, Speaker.

The member for Thornhill talked about the need to reduce red tape. That’s exactly what Bill 27 is going to do. In fact, I’ve heard her leader refer to the fact that one of his pillars is reducing red tape. That’s what this bill does, so we look forward to getting support from the opposition on this particular bill.

Speaker, I do want to share with you some important highlights of Bill 27 that are really good for businesses in Ontario. It’s going to save money for businesses and for government.

The Ministry of Economic Development and Growth has introduced amendments and they intend to reduce regulatory burdens and practices that do cost businesses time and money. It’s going to protect environmental and health standards, enhance worker safety and achieve cost savings for government. That’s very important for both business and for government.

The ministry has worked with 11 partner ministries and is looking at amendments of more than 50 different statutes. We have listened to our stakeholders and we want to work together to see this go through.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing that it is 10:15, I will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome two guests from Richmond Hill, Gwen and Robert Johnstone, sitting in this east members’ gallery.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Today I’d like to welcome, on behalf of my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga, guests of page William Dixon: his grandmother, Sylvia Dixon, and grandfather, Bill Dixon. Sylvia and Bill, welcome to Queen’s Park this morning.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. The Sudbury by-election scandal casts a dark shadow over today’s by-elections in Niagara West–Glanbrook and Ottawa–Vanier. That’s because the Premier refuses to tell us what she knew about the alleged offers that led to bribery charges against her former deputy chief of staff. She’s hiding behind the legal process, and that’s nonsense. This isn’t about the presumption of innocence; it’s about the Premier’s judgment. She stood by Pat Sorbara when she was under investigation. She said the OPP wouldn’t lay charges. She rewarded her by making her head of the Liberal re-election team.

I’m not asking about what’s going to happen in court; I’m asking about the Premier’s judgment. Will the Premier tell us how she reached those decisions, and does she think she made the right call?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. Thank you very much for recognizing me to answer this very important question because the question the member opposite is asking is before the court of law. He can spin it however he wants to, but this matter is before the courts. He continues to ask questions that should not be deliberated in this House. Those are matters that should be left before our very competent judicial system, not to be discussed here. He knows that. He thinks it’s good political fodder for him. That’s why he’s asking these questions.

He can continue to do so, but on this side of the House we will recognize and we will respect the rule of law. We will respect the standing orders rules that are very clear in terms of respecting the jurisdiction of our courts. That is a fundamental tenet of our system, and I ask the member opposite to do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Here we go again. More excuses to hide from the question.

I want to thank you, Speaker, because you were very clear about something yesterday. The Attorney General claimed my question was out of order because these matters were before the courts, and you told him he was wrong. You stressed that your only caution under our standing orders was about making allegations, and you allowed my question, so I was in order.

What’s not in order, Speaker, are the excuses we’re hearing over there to avoid giving Ontarians a straight answer. Speaker, now that you’ve taken this excuse off the table, will the Premier tell us why she hasn’t asked her energy minister to step aside despite the fact that he’s named in the OPP’s bribery information?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think we’ve dealt with that matter repeatedly in this House as well. The Minister of Energy has not been charged with anything. The Minister of Energy and his responsibilities as the minister are not the subject of this matter.

There are two people charged who do not serve in this House. They are entitled to due process. That process is ongoing. It has nothing to do with the Minister of Energy in his role as a minister or as member for Sudbury. What he continues to be focused on and what this government and the Premier are focused on is making sure that we are improving the lives of Ontarians every single day, that we are building Ontario up by investing in our schools, by investing in our hospitals, by building public transit across this province.

That’s the priority of this Premier, Speaker. That is the priority of this government. We will remain focused on that.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, back to the Premier: Ontarians see what’s happening here, and it’s why the Liberals are in trouble everywhere, including their stronghold in Ottawa–Vanier. It’s understandable, why the Premier is here today: Her brand is so damaged, the Liberal campaigns want her so far away from Niagara and Ottawa–Vanier.

Speaker, you’ve been very clear. Our standing orders allow me to put these questions on the table, and I deserve an answer. I’m not making allegations or trying to try a case; I don’t need to. The fact that the OPP has—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): For two days now, I’ve had to go to warnings. I’m not afraid to go to a third day. In fact, I’m close.

Finish, please.

Mr. Steve Clark: The fact that the OPP have laid charges against the Premier’s trusted ally and named her energy minister in their information is enough.

Speaker, will the Premier finally tell us what she knows about Pat Sorbara’s phone calls to Andrew Olivier and any discussions with the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the member opposite asked about the Premier’s priorities. I’ll share with you what the Premier’s priorities are.

The Premier’s priority is to build Ontario up for every single Ontarian. The Premier’s priority is to make sure that we give a substantive break to first-time home buyers to make it affordable for them to own a home. The Premier’s priority is to continue to invest in the health care system by an additional $145 million in our hospitals. That is in addition to about $375 million that we announced in the budget, whereby we’re spending over $40 billion in building our health care system. The Premier’s priority is to build 3,500 new child care spaces just this year alone. That is what the Premier’s priority is.

The party opposite, the Conservative Party, do not share those priorities, and it is unfortunate, because they have no plan for Ontario. The only thing they know is political sparring—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are two people who have my attention, and it will be official in a moment, if it carries on.

New question.

Access to justice

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. The administration of justice is a keystone to a fair, just and free society. Ontario, however, is without equal in its failings of the administration of justice. We have the worst record in the country.

I have repeatedly asked the minister why nearly half of all criminal cases in this province are stayed or withdrawn before trial. Yesterday, another headline emerged: “... Murder Charge Stayed Following Nearly Four-Year Delay.”

Adam Picard was arrested and accused of the first-degree murder of Fouad Nayel. He was denied bail and remanded into custody for four years. Today, we know one of two things: Either an innocent man was unfairly incarcerated, or a violent criminal has been released to freedom without conditions.

Speaker, the minister must answer for the miscarriage of justice in nearly one of every two criminal cases.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I appreciate the member asking this very important question. As I said yesterday, I take this matter very seriously, the case he’s referring to, and I am concerned, Speaker. It is absolutely important that our justice system works for everyone: works for the victims, works for the accused, and it should work for the public across the province.

My ministry’s officials are very closely looking at that decision that was rendered just two days ago. I have asked them to conduct their review in an expeditious manner so that they could determine next steps.

This is a matter that is before the courts. As you know, there is an appeal period right now. It would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on that.

But I do want to stress that this is a serious matter, Speaker, and I take those concerns very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Attorney General: The system is not working. It doesn’t take a legal expert to see that our justice system is acting in a manner that frustrates and obstructs justice while also failing to protect society from dangerous offenders.

Justice Parfett attributed her decision to the crown’s heavy caseload and the crown’s refusal to expedite the trial.

While we know the minister has initiated a review of the case, what is needed is a review of the culture of complacency, as Justice Parfett indicated.

How can the crown object to a motion to expedite an already-delayed trial? How can they prosecute thousands of minor, less violent crimes, but disregard murder trials?

Speaker, the minister and his crown attorneys are acting in a manner that is prejudicial to the public good. These are the symptoms of the culture of complacency which starts and ends in the minister’s office.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I said, the matter is a serious one, and I’m concerned. The decision is being reviewed by my ministry. Given that we’re in an appeal period, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

I do want to take the matter that the member opposite spoke about, and that is the Jordan decision from the Supreme Court of Canada—which, in my opinion, in my conversations with our judiciary and our other partners, presents a very valuable opportunity for our entire justice system.

Fair and timely access to justice is a core value of my ministry and our government. It’s a value that’s shared and held by all Ontarians.

We are actively working with our justice sector partners to develop strategies to address issues of delay both in the short and the long term. In the supplementary, I will highlight to you some of the steps that we have already taken.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again, Speaker, the facts are as simple as they’re frightening—but also in their duration. The justice system is either keeping innocent people behind bars or allowing criminals to walk free.

Justice Parfett acknowledged in the decision, “The justice system has failed this accused and the public.”

The Auditor General has raised the alarm on these systemic failings for many years. The crown attorneys’ association issued a statement on the crisis of trial delays. And the press is consistently reporting on the outrage caused by these stayed and withdrawn cases. Everyone, legal experts or not, can plainly see that injustice is pervasive—everyone except the minister, it appears.

Speaker, when will the Attorney General stop locking up the innocent and stop setting violent criminals free?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, since the Jordan decision has been released, I’ve been very much focused, along with the Ministry of the Attorney General, and our judiciary and other partners in the justice system on this particular issue. Time to trial is a very important issue and it’s fundamental to our justice system.

Since July, my ministry has been working with crowns, court services staff, the judiciary and the criminal defence bar, and we have taken a number of steps. We are assessing the state of cases in the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. We’ve been organizing local bench, crown and bar meetings to discuss local solutions. And in September, the Ontario Court of Justice and the ministry hosted a criminal justice sector workshop which focused on planning justice sector responses to the Jordan decision.

Crown officers are actively reviewing cases in light of the Jordan decision and developing strategies to proactively deal with cases that may be in jeopardy.

Speaker, this is an issue that impacts the entire country. I’ve had the opportunity to speak to my counterparts, the other ministers of justice, and they’re all working on this issue together.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier this morning.

Yesterday, I visited Richelle McDonald at her home in Smithville. Richelle and her husband, Justin, have three children. The whole family struggles, unfortunately, with different illnesses that keep each of them on medication. She told me that for the past few months, her hydro bill has been so high that she has been forced to choose between the medications her family needs and keeping the lights on. How is it possible that a family in this wealthy province—a family that works hard every single day—is forced to make decisions like that?

When will this Premier finally understand that people can’t afford her sell-off of Hydro One and put an end to it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to comment on the issue around medication, but it is unacceptable that someone would have to make that choice. I completely agree with the leader of the third party.

But, again, the leader of the third party is conflating issues. What is unacceptable to me is that there would be people who would be that burdened with electricity prices, which is why we are working to take costs out of the system and to lower those electricity costs. The leader of the third party conflates that issue with the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, which is strictly about investing in infrastructure, in transit and in projects like the Hamilton LRT, to make sure that we have an inclusive economy that allows people to move around this province in the best way possible. Those issues are separate. We’re working to lower electricity costs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Richelle had to tell her 16-, 15- and 13-year-old children that the family was not putting up Christmas lights this year. It devastated her to do that because stringing the lights has been a family tradition since her first son was born. But, thanks to her skyrocketing hydro bills, she just can’t afford to light up her home for the holidays.

Why doesn’t this Premier understand the effects that her wrong-headed hydro decisions are having on the people of this province? She has her little lines all pat out there, and she repeats them every single day in this Legislature, while families are having to make untenable decisions about their family life and about the history that they expect to be able to continue when it comes to traditions like Christmas.

Why won’t she put the interests of families first? Why won’t she put the interests of people like Richelle and other families ahead of the interests of her friends on Bay Street and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the leader of the third party that, as long as she continues to conflate issues that are not related, I will continue to tell her the reality and give her the real information about what is happening.

I am very concerned about the fact that electricity prices that have risen because of the investments we have made in the system, because we have cleaned up a system that was dirty and that had been neglected for years by government after government—we have cleaned that system up. There is a cost attached to that, and we recognize that there are people who are not able to cover their electricity costs, which is why we are taking costs off their bills and why we are working to make sure that they can afford that.

But the Hydro One issue is about investing in infrastructure. Broadening the ownership of Hydro One is about investing in infrastructure.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s this Premier that needs a dose of reality. She has to understand what the people of this province are dealing with because of her wrong-headed decisions in the hydro file.

The reality is that it’s not just Christmas lights that are going to be missing from this year’s Christmas at Richelle’s home. She and her husband have told the kids to expect fewer presents under the tree as well. Now, as a parent, I certainly understand how hard it must have been for her to tell her kids that Christmas would not include cherished family traditions like Christmas lights and like the kind of gifts that they expect.

When will this Premier finally stop spinning her message and instead show some real leadership on this file and put Richelle and her family, and families like them, at the top of the agenda, put them first for a change, and stop her stubborn, wrong-headed, unwanted, totally hated sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t know the situation with Richelle and her family; I don’t know the specifics. I don’t know, for example—as the leader of the third party was talking about medication—whether she is eligible for supports through the Trillium drug benefit. I don’t know if the leader of the third party had the opportunity to talk to her about the Ontario energy support program or the programs that are in place that would help her with her electricity bills.

What I do know is that she will see a reduction as of January 1 because we’re taking off the provincial portion of the HST. The leader of the third party is talking about how we should make it permanent. That is a permanent change, Mr. Speaker. We have committed to that. She’s trying to say that somehow we haven’t made that commitment; in fact, we have.

But Mr. Speaker, it is very important to me that the leader of the third party and the people of Ontario understand that we’re going to invest in transit, in bridges, in schools and the hospitals they need across the province.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The hydro file is not the only area where the Premier is extremely disappointing the people of Ontario. The Sudbury bribery scandal is a stain on the Premier and her Liberal Party, but more importantly, it has shaken trust in the government and our democracy.

For months, the Premier stood by her top aide, Pat Sorbara, until she was formally charged by the OPP, showing Ontarians that her priorities lie not with them but, rather, in protecting Liberal Party insiders. We recently learned that, of course, the Minister of Energy is also implicated in this scandal.

My question is, will the Premier make the same mistake again with her minister, or will she put aside her blind partisanship, ask him to step down and show Ontarians that she will choose them over Liberal Party insiders for a change?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As the Premier has been very clear on this issue, she has answered questions on this matter in this House, through the media. She’s been very up front and transparent to Ontarians.

I’ve also stated in many instances that this matter relates to two individuals who have been charged under the Ontario Election Act. That matter is before the courts. Those two individuals do not serve in this Legislature and those charges do not relate to the Minister of Energy. He has not been charged with any offence whatsoever, and the subject matter of those allegations does not deal with the responsibility of the minister in his role as Minister of Energy.

So there is no such need for what the member is asking. We’ll continue to focus on our job, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Bribery is a very serious allegation—both offering a bribe and accepting a bribe. It’s unconscionable that a member of the Premier’s cabinet should remain—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Any time now.

The chief government whip will withdraw.

Mr. James J. Bradley: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to ask all members to refrain from making any comments while I’m standing, number one.

Number two, I’m listening carefully to everyone’s conversation, and if I hear something unparliamentary, I’ll deal with it.

Please finish, member.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s unconscionable that a member of the Premier’s cabinet should remain in his role if there’s even a hint that he may have been involved in this scandal. As a province, we must be better than this. We must be better than playing silly political games when something as important as people’s faith in our democracy is at stake. The Premier needs to step—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m particularly not amused by what’s happening, and if I continue to hear the interjections the way I have been, I’ll go to warnings and actually may move to naming. This is going to get done properly today.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier needs to step up and be the leader she said she was going to be when she was elected in 2014. Will she ask her minister to step aside?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I find it a bit rich hearing from the leader of the third party who talks about political games, who has taken a very serious issue and day after day is only making it a partisan issue.

She herself has recognized, the opposition has recognized, that this is a serious matter, that this is a matter before the courts. There are allegations around certain individuals, and it is only fair, in our system, that we let the courts make the due consideration and due determination based on evidence presented to them.

It’s not the time and the place to make it a part of the political rancour in this House. That’s what the member opposite is doing. That’s beneath the NDP, in my humble opinion. We should be all focusing on issues that are important. That’s what the Premier has been focused on.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: She’s investing in our schools and daycare spaces; she’s investing in our health care. That’s where the Premier’s priorities are. That’s what she ran on in 2014, and she’s delivering on it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m disappointed. The people of Sudbury are disappointed. The people of Ontario are disappointed. I guess the Premier really does care more about partisan politics and Liberal insiders than she does about protecting the integrity of Ontario’s democratic traditions.

The Premier has a chance to do what so many Premiers have done before her, and I urge her to take that chance. Will the Premier acknowledge that the faith the people have in her government is more important than protecting Liberal Party insiders and ask her Minister of Energy to step down until the Sudbury scandal is completely closed?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier respects the rule of law. The Premier respects the independence of our judiciary. We ask the member opposite to do the same thing.

The member from Sudbury is not some political insider. He is the elected member of provincial Parliament for Sudbury. He has been duly elected—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case he didn’t hear it, the Minister of Infrastructure has already been spoken to. And there are a few other people, some of them not even in their seats, who will get my attention.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the member from Sudbury has been elected not once, not twice, but three times by the people of Sudbury. Why? Because he continues to honourably serve his community. He continues to deliver for his community. That’s the kind of man he is, and he will continue to do so.

Hydro rates

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago, my constituent Mrs. Karen Rucas wrote to me to voice her frustration over excessive fees and charges on her hydro bill. Let me just summarize her bill for you. Hydro usage: $179.58. Total cost of her bill: $512.20. Mrs. Rucas explains that of the whopping $512 total cost of her bill, $309 of it is government fees. Mr. Speaker, that’s 60% of her bill in fees alone. Mrs. Rucas describes these hydro fees as a “terrible scam” on the people of Ontario. She finds it atrocious that she’s being charged taxes piled on top of taxes.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rucas would like to know: Will residents of Ontario be reimbursed for what she and many people call outrageous overcharges?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the honourable member for that question because he does bring forward a good point. Many folks in this province are having a difficult time paying their hydro bills. That’s why, in our speech from the throne, we brought forward many programs to help families and to help individuals like that.

Come January 1, there will be an 8% reduction on those bills, and if that individual is actually in one of the rural or remote communities, she’ll actually see a 20% reduction. On top of that, I hope the honourable member is also talking to her about the OESP program, because that is a benefit that many families and many individuals can qualify for. If this is a senior and if they actually heat their home with electricity, they can get up to $75 a month on top of that. That’s a significant reduction to help families who are actually having a difficult time.

For me, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that he is encouraging them to look at the programs and work with the LDC to make sure that they can get the benefits to help them reduce their bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: Premier, Mrs. Rucas isn’t the only person worried about her hydro bill. Earlier this fall, my constituent Mr. Richard Wiles of Collingwood wrote to me to voice his intense frustration over the high cost of electricity in this province. Mr. Wiles told me that taking the provincial sales tax off of hydro bills is a joke, in his opinion. “Too little, too late” is what he said. Mr. Wiles also noted that it’s not right that he is forced to pay huge delivery charges at the cottage when they’re not there in the winter months.

Premier, my constituents and our constituents on all sides of the House really want to know: Rather than rebate programs and all that, what are you actually doing to get the system back on track? What are you actually doing to fix the problem over there? That’s what they want to know.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Well, what we’ve done is fix the system that they left in tatters. We had to build 15,000 kilometres of lines to ensure that families actually get power. We’ve ensured that we’ve built a system that is safe and reliable, that doesn’t have rolling brownouts or blackouts that actually affect our overall economy and put all families in this province in the black. We’ve made sure that we’ve invested in programs and systems to have a clean, reliable system. We no longer have to send out warnings telling Ontarians that they don’t have to go outside and worry about breathing. We’ve eliminated coal.

We’ve made sure that we’ve got a clean, reliable system for all families, something that that government—when they were in power, they kept kicking this issue to the curb. We acted to make sure that we’ve made a difference for this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. The member from Renfrew will come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. That will probably be my last individual notice until I go to warnings.

New question.

Automobile insurance

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this week, the people of Toronto found out which neighbourhoods pay the highest car insurance rates. According to a Kanetix study, where you live is a determining factor in how much you pay. People who live in the Malvern and Rouge areas of Scarborough and people who live near Jane and Finch in north York pay an estimated $1,000 more per year than those living in Forest Hill.

Does the Premier think it’s fair that people living in areas that have the highest number of new Canadians, the highest rates of immigration and some of the lowest average incomes in the province are forced to pay the most for their car insurance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question, recognizing of course that we’re all concerned about rising rates when it comes to auto insurance. That’s why we’ve taken the steps, deliberate steps, to foster ways to reduce those costs of claims, enabling—premiums now have been reduced over this period of time by almost 9%.

We’re looking towards reducing them even further on average by working closely with the industry by providing the most generous benefits to the people of Ontario, noting of course, as the member just made reference, that there are certain regions and certain locations of the province that have higher rates of incidents and accidents while in some other parts in the north they do not.

The member opposite is suggesting that maybe we should increase the rates in the north and subsidize the south. We’re not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. That is not up to us. We are going to take every step necessary to let the market forces prevail and ensure that it’s fair and that everybody pays the appropriate amount, and reduce those rates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: This finance minister is living in a completely different reality than the people of this province outside of this building. Ontarians already know they can’t trust what this Premier and this minister say about car insurance rates. After all, the Liberal government promised a 15% reduction in rates that New Democrats fought for in 2013, only to call it a “stretch goal” earlier this year.

Just last month, we discovered that auto insurance rate increases were approved by this government twice in 2016. We know that Ontario pays the most in auto insurance in all of Canada. Between 2001 and 2013, the people of this province overpaid for auto insurance by an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion.

Can this Premier explain to Ontarians why the high cost of car insurance doesn’t matter to her anymore?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, I want to reiterate that rates on average have been going down. We want them to go down further. Approximately 20% of the companies in Ontario have actually already reduced their rates by 15%, and 50% of the market have already reduced their rates by over 10%. We’re trying desperately to find ways to foster even greater co-operation and reduction in those costs.

Part of it, of course, is that there has been fraudulent activity. There has been abuse of the system. There have been a number of interplays that are causing rates to be extraordinarily high in Ontario versus other parts of Canada. We’re trying to bring more of that into line in order to enable those reductions. But the member opposite has to confer and agree to move more quickly on some of these matters instead of stalling and then not approving the very measures that were taken to reduce those rates.

We’re going to continue doing our part, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to reduce those rates for the people of Ontario.

Hate crimes

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Attorney General. It’s not a question that I want to have to ask, but today we had a third incident in Ottawa of anti-Semitism: the defacing of a couple of synagogues in my riding: Machzikei Hadas, right around the corner from my house, and Beth Israel, which is in Minister Chiarelli’s riding. It’s not my Ottawa—the Ottawa that I know. In the last year, I’ve had a mosque defaced and an Islamic school defaced. Given world events, these are really deeply concerning things.

To the Attorney General: Could he please let us know what we’re doing to address these kinds of heinous and hateful acts?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, these acts of hate are shocking. They’re sad and absolutely unacceptable. It’s really troubling to know that this is happening in my community. I know that these acts of hate do not reflect Ontarians or, in fact, Canadians. We, together—every single member of this Legislature—stand together against these acts of hate that have taken place in Ottawa over the last three days. We must all work together to eliminate hatred, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate.

If police believe that there are hate crimes committed, they will conduct an investigation and, where appropriate, lay a criminal charge. Ontario crown attorneys will prosecute these cases vigorously. We will not tolerate hate crimes in Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the Attorney General. If we look at the discourse south of the border over the last few months, we see that it has apparently made it okay to openly be hateful, to openly mock people, to be misogynists and to be open about this. I know that we think and believe—and we do have a political culture here—but we are not immune. Don’t believe that we’re immune. There are shadows of it. We see shadows of it in the last federal election. We see shadows of it now in our communities.

We all need to stand together. This is a really serious, serious matter. So I would like to ask the Attorney General what we do to prosecute these crimes and to help those victims suffering from these hateful acts.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the member from Ottawa South is absolutely right: We all are in this together. We all have to protect each other. We all have to stand against acts of hate and racism. There is no place for these types of vile acts to take place in our communities in our province.

In the Ministry of the Attorney General, a team of crown prosecutors specially trained in the legislation and prosecution of these offences provide support to the police, other crowns and communities across the province. It is crown policy that hate-motivated offences be prosecuted vigorously where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public’s interest. Victims of hate crimes have access to victim and witness assistance programs on a priority basis after charges are laid. These services are available province-wide.

I ask all members of the House today to stand together to say no to hate, no to racism, no to intolerance in our society.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Tree planting

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. In 2004, the county of Wellington established a Green Legacy Programme which plants more than 150,000 trees across the county each year. It has grown into the largest municipal tree-planting program in North America.

We need to take the county’s Green Legacy Programme province-wide. Last year, the House unanimously passed my private member’s resolution calling to do just that to celebrate Ontario’s 150th anniversary within a united Canada in 2017. Government members were very enthusiastic in support of the idea. This past April, we followed up by arranging a meeting in my office with senior Ministry of Natural Resources officials, including the deputy minister.

The government has now had more than a year since my resolution was passed. What specifically has the ministry done to begin planning to implement an Ontario green legacy program?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I thank the member opposite for the question. We made a bold commitment on this side of the House a few years ago to plant 50 million trees in the province of Ontario under the Premier’s leadership, and we are starting to accomplish that. In fact, we’ve planted more than 22 million trees so far, so we are well on track to be able to accomplish that.

I have spoken with the member and with some of the members of Green Legacy, and I really do applaud that particular organization for their implementation program. They have a great way of getting the trees out to schoolchildren and other community groups. I’m going to continue to work towards ensuring that we have our commitment done, including the one million trees that we’re planting within the urban areas, not only for beautifycation but also to try to fill in the gaps where there have been ash trees lost to the emerald ash borers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I thank the minister for that response, but I would say to her that we can do more—much, much more. The intent of my resolution, which highlighted the excellent work done by the county of Wellington, is to encourage the minister to provide the necessary leadership, urging Ontario residents to get involved, to volunteer, to work with local community organizations and massively increase our tree-planting efforts in Ontario. This would have so many benefits and serve as a tangible community response to the challenge of climate change.

As members will recall, this past September at the International Plowing Match, which was held in Wellington county, Warden George Bridge mentioned our idea for an Ontario green legacy program in his remarks. I was sitting on the stage, directly behind the Premier. She turned around and told me, “It’s a great idea.”

My question is simple. If the county of Wellington supports it, the Ontario Legislature supports it, the Premier supports it, and the David Suzuki Foundation and many other groups support it, why aren’t they doing it?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you for the supplementary, but we are already doing it. On this side of the House, we are out planting the trees. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I was at the TD Tree Day in Cambridge, and over 300 people turned out on a chilly, windy, rainy morning to plant a variety of trees. I myself planted a butternut tree in that area.

This is ongoing work in every single community. School groups in my riding and surrounding ridings are out there. We are certainly on track to get that 50 million trees.

I know that a lot of people have been talking to me recently about using the opportunity of Canada 150 to plant more trees as a legacy project in their area, but the benefits are beautification, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and certainly employing trees as—

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

New question.

Hydro rates

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is for the Premier. Last month, the Ontario government reannounced a rebate program for energy-efficient retrofits. But in the months between the first announcement—

Applause.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: The government would do well to hold their applause.

But in the months between the first announcement and the reannouncement, the government failed to make this program accessible to homeowners in the north.

To qualify, homeowners are told that they need a home energy audit, but there is not a certified energy adviser to perform one in the Kenora–Rainy River riding. The closest adviser is in Thunder Bay, which is 490 kilometres away from Kenora.

Does the Premier really expect people to travel 490 kilometres just to do a home energy audit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment, but let me just say to the member opposite that if there is that kind of challenge to getting these audits, we need to deal with that because it’s very important that people have access to them, that there be the trained personnel within a reasonable geography to perform them.

Certainly, the Minister of Energy will want to hear more details about the situation, but we are committed to making sure that people have access to those audits, so that they can work on the retrofits that are going to save them money.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Here are some more hoops that northern homeowners have to jump through just to get one of government’s home energy rebates.

First, homeowners need to reside in an area served by Enbridge or Union Gas, which leaves out whole communities in the north. For those who do, they must find an auditor, who may be 490 kilometres away, and pay their fee plus their travel expenses, which are limited by the program at $500. Then the homeowner must find a contractor who is available in their community to complete the work and have the auditor return to complete the final assessment within 120 days of the initial assessment.

Northern homeowners pay the highest energy bills in the province and they need this rebate the most, but they are the one who are the least able to benefit from this program. What will the Premier do to improve access to this program for all northern homeowners?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I do want to thank the member for bringing that question up. As a northerner myself, it is important for us to make sure that we have equal access to all programs that are out there.

It is concerning for me to hear that it isn’t something that is necessarily available to the folks in the Kenora and Rainy River area, because conservation is key for all of us. Making sure that we have the programs that we have out there and getting everyone involved will do several things: It will reduce our GHGs, but it will also help us with the cost of electricity and the cost of heating our homes, especially in the north.

It’s great, too, that we have a $200-million loan program and a $30-million grant program being offered by the Minister of Infrastructure and the Ministry of Infrastructure to ensure that we can get natural gas rolling out to more communities right across our great province.

I met with the individuals—the mayor and others—from that part of the province, and they would really like to see natural gas in their part of the province, and it’s a great program.

Ontario Place

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. First, I would like to thank the minister for clarifying to my community that there is no plan for more condos at Ontario Place.

This province is moving forward with a vision to revitalize Ontario Place into a vibrant, year-round waterfront destination that builds on its legacy of innovation, fun and live music, which engages residents and visitors of all ages.

As part of this vision, the new urban park and William G. Davis Trail is on track to be completed by summer 2017. The newly designed William G. Davis Trail, located on the east island, will add 7.5 acres of new parkland to Toronto’s waterfront.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister was visiting Ontario Place yesterday. Through you to her: Could she tell the members of this House more about the first phase of the Ontario Place revitalization?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his advocacy for Ontario Place, which is located in his riding, to the benefit of the citizens of Toronto and Ontarians more broadly. I want to thank him for that ongoing and effective advocacy.

Our tour yesterday gave us the opportunity to really look at the developing urban park and trail and to look at not only what has been completed but what’s to come, and we’re very excited about that.

As my colleague mentioned, the urban park and trail will add 7.5 acres to our beautiful waterfront that all Ontarians will be able to access. It will be free, and it’s shaping up to be an absolutely gorgeous spot. I’m very proud of the work that’s ongoing.

I just want to highlight a few of the features of this amazing space. In the transformation of what once was a parking lot and a flat parking space, we’re creating a beautiful series of vistas eight metres above the lake level, providing stunning panoramic views.

I look forward to adding more in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for her answer. The urban park and trail is going to dramatically transform Toronto’s waterfront with new green spaces. It’s fantastic to hear that this vision proposes a mix of outdoor and indoor features, including more green space, a water-based recreational blue park and a waterfront trail around the entire site.

This project continues to create and support jobs for Ontario workers. Nearly 300 people have worked on-site, and the project has also involved businesses across the province. In fact, 99% of the construction workforce on the park and trail is based in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can she tell the members of this House how the public and stakeholders were engaged in the design process of this park?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’m proud to talk about the consultation process that’s really being honoured now in the transformation of Ontario Place. I’m happy to say that I was part of this consultation prior to being elected. I had the opportunity to join Ontarians in shaping the future of Ontario Place and engaging with them in that important process. They helped us to shape the park design, they played an important role in its creation, and overwhelmingly, they said to keep Ontario Place accessible to all Ontarians, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Through that revitalization process, it will continue to serve as a vibrant venue for music festivals and events. Next year we will host a number of exciting events as part of Ontario150. I invite all members of this House to join us in celebrating the reopening of the William G. Davis park next year in July.

Hydro rates

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Premier. A resident in my riding, Tom, sent a letter to the Premier on October 11, 2016. In that letter, Tom expressed his deep frustration and anger over his last hydro bill received from Whitby Hydro—$912.98.

Tom also outlined in his letter the steps his family had taken to use electricity more efficiently—for example, using appliances at off-peak hours. In his letter, Tom said, “The sudden realization by your government that we have an energy crisis in the province is laughable.”

Speaker, I support Tom in asking the Premier: Why has it taken this government 13 years to realize that an energy crisis exists in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Actually, it has taken this government 13 years to build up the electricity system that they left in tatters. That’s why it has been so long. They actually never invested in the system. They actually used to import electricity from the United States, at the cost of over $500 million, $700 million. When he was the minister, the MPP from Simcoe–Grey used to—

Interjections.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They claim they want lower rates, but they want to rip up contracts that will actually cost us over $20 billion and increase rates even more.

On this side of the House, we’ve eliminated coal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re now in warnings.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We have eliminated coal. We’re making sure that we have a reliable system, a clean system, a green system, and we’re working to make it more affordable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Again to the Premier: Tom and his wife recently spent time with friends from Manitoba, and they compared hydro bills. Manitobans pay one rate of 0.0793 cents per kilowatt hour, a number that is less than our best off-peak rate of 0.870 cents per kilowatt hour. Tom’s Manitoba friend paid a hydro invoice, for a period of time equivalent to Tom’s bill, of $244.

Speaker, what is clear from this comparison is that a minor sales tax cut from our hydro bills fails to impact the dramatic differences in energy costs among provinces.

When will this government recognize that escalating hydro bills have reached epidemic proportions and are hurting hard-working families?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’ve brought forward many of these initiatives, that will help families come January 1. We will help businesses as well. But when you’re looking at the facts, we are right in the middle of the pack when it comes to competitiveness, when it comes to prices, right across North America. Ontario’s 2015 average for electricity prices was lower than New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and many other states in the US.

When looking at the average price you don’t have to take my word, Mr. Speaker; you can take the word of the independent Financial Accountability Officer. That officer outlined that when it comes to electricity prices, only British Columbia is lower than us. When it comes to overall energy prices, we’re right in the middle of the pack.

But that doesn’t stop us from recognizing that some families are still having a difficult time, and that’s why we’ve brought our 8% reduction, our 20% reduction and the OESP program.

Student assistance

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. In the weeks since the Ontario NDP launched our new website, endstudentdebt.ca, stories have come flooding in. For example, Holly Parkinson not only worked during university; she also moved back home to save money. She has now graduated, but at 25 years old she expects to have to live with her parents for years. She writes that if interest was removed from her student loan, she would be able to pay off her debt and start saving for her future.

Student loan debt, compounded by interest on student loans, is keeping young people like Holly from moving forward with their lives after they graduate. Will the Premier act now to remove interest from student loans?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. As everyone here recognizes, making sure that all students have access to post-secondary education is a very, very high priority for us. That’s why we’re moving forward with changes to OSAP that are progressive, that are generous. It will be simpler to use. The benefits are enormous. For those at the lowest end of the income scale, tuition will be free. Grants will exceed the price of tuition.

It’s a fundamental principle for us that everyone should have access to post-secondary education based on their potential, not on their pocketbook. We’re making real, meaningful changes, Speaker, and I will address the issue of interest on debt in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the submissions made to our website tell a bleak story. Many students are working multiple jobs while in school, only to graduate with huge debts and few opportunities for full-time employment.

Saminder Parana was the first in his family to graduate from post-secondary but had to juggle three jobs in order to pay for his education. Now in his 30s and unable to find anything other than minimum-wage work, he has $30,000 of debt and no real chance of paying it off.

Speaker, how can this Premier justify making a profit off the backs of struggling graduates by charging interest on student loans?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We actually have taken the recommendation of the third party. We’ve looked at that recommendation and we have calculated that on average, students with student debt would have relief of $6.11 a month if we were to move forward with the NDP proposal.

We are making a much more profound change, Speaker. Our changes to OSAP will do far more than the changes that they are recommending. Their benefit is $6.11 a month on average, Speaker. We are offering free tuition for 150,000 students—far, far, far greater savings than their plan.

Road safety

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. When I’m knocking on doors in my riding, invariably—and I know we all experience this—people with children, when you knock on their door, the first thing that they talk to you about is road safety. The thing they talk to you about is the safety of their children going to school, their concern to ensure that their son or daughter gets there and gets back.

I know that we passed some legislation last summer about distracted driving and impaired driving, and it was with the support of all the members of this Legislature. So I know that members support the safety of children as well. But I know we need municipal partners, because they govern that area of road safety. Could the minister please tell us what we are doing to partner with our municipalities to ensure the safety of our children going to school?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Ottawa South for, yet again, a very strong question. Of course, he is an extraordinary advocate for his community of Ottawa South.

But Speaker, through you to that member and our other members from the Ottawa area, particularly the Attorney General and others who have spoken to me and to the Premier over many months about the importance over many months to make sure that we move forward in partnering with our municipalities to improve road safety—particularly in the areas around school zones and community safety zones and also working with municipalities around what is known as the default speed limit—in response to the overwhelming message we heard from a number of key municipalities including Ottawa, Toronto, York region and others, we have moved forward with an initiative that will help, ultimately, to protect our most vulnerable road users: pedestrians, cyclists and others in those school zones and community safety zones.

Just a few days ago, I was proud to introduce legislation in this House which I would be delighted to elaborate on in the follow-up answer to the next question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to thank the minister for the answer to that question. It’s not only the safety of our children going to school—and I was very pleased to be there last week when we announced that in Ottawa—but it’s other road users as well.

Recently, in my riding of Ottawa South, Perley and Rideau Veterans’ on Russell Road put a senior persons’ crossing because we have about 700 people living in a concentrated area that go back and forth across the street to walk and to catch the bus. It is of great concern, not just to parents of children, but also sons and daughters of parents who are living in assisted living or in long-term care.

I would like to ask the minister what this legislation will do for that aspect of road safety as we go—

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by saying again to the member from Ottawa South thank you for the question, and also for the very important point that he made.

It is true that we made the announcement regarding introducing automated speed enforcement for school zones and community safety zones, Speaker. Certainly, the announcement that was made by the Premier in Ottawa and also by the Premier in Leaside—Leaside is a particular community here in Toronto deeply affected by a road safety tragedy involving a young girl named Georgia Walsh a number of years ago.

The overwhelming message we received back from families in both the Leaside area and also in Ottawa—and I know this is consistently applied in other parts of the province as well, Speaker—is that governments at all levels have to work closely together to collaborate, to make sure that as it relates to protecting our most vulnerable road users, we strike the right balance. That’s why we’ve introduced this legislation. It’s why we will continue to work hard on this initiative, and I look forward to working with that member and all members in this House on these issues.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: On a point of order: I just want to introduce two guests who are here today, Les Liversidge and his daughter, Glea Liversidge. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: The other member from Mississauga–Streetsville. Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you for giving me the chance to introduce three guests sitting in the members’ east gallery: from the consulate of India, Rajender Perindia; the president of the National Association of Indo-Canadians, Manmohan Singh; and the director of the National Association of Indo-Canadians, Manoj Goel. Welcome, and thank you for coming.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I would like to correct the record on my supplementary question. Manitobans pay one rate of 7.93 cents per kilowatt hour, a number that is less than our best off-peak rate of 8.70 cents per kilowatt hour.

Visitor

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I’ve got to learn to wait my turn sometimes, but thank you for that.

I just want to introduce page captain Vishmen Aynkharan’s mother, Suba, who is joining us in the public gallery somewhere here today.

Answers to written questions

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin-Caledon on a point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I have been waiting almost a week for an order paper question to be responded to by the Minister of Children and Youth, and I would like your assistance to get that order paper filed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One moment, please.

It is my understanding that it is overdue. I will turn to the government House leader for a response.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, our sincere apologies. It’s not our intention to not submit these on time. I will ensure that the Minister of Children and Youth Services tables this response as soon as possible.

Visitor

Mr. Arthur Potts: I just want a moment to introduce my friend Howard Brown, who is in the House. He’s doing great work with the members of the opposition, bringing to our government—I appreciate having him here.

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

The House recessed from 1136 to 1300.

Appointment of French Language Services Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of the order in council appointing François Boileau as French Language Services Commissioner for the term of five years commencing November 15, 2016.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to welcome Dr. Darren Cargill, Ana Duma and Laura Duma. They’re here to witness the debate today on Dan’s Law.

Members’ Statements

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m very pleased to rise today to recognize the appointment of Rhonda Barnet as chair of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, which is Canada’s largest trade and industry association and the voice of more than 10,000 leading companies nationwide.

Rhonda was announced as chair of CME last Thursday, setting a milestone for the organization as the first woman ever to hold the role. As chair of the CME, Rhonda expressed her commitment to advancing the involvement of women in manufacturing, strengthening our small and medium-sized businesses, and also her hope that her role will have an impact locally.

Through her involvement in the Kawartha Manufacturers Association, she plans to connect the two boards to advance manufacturing in the Peterborough area. Under Rhonda’s leadership, I have no doubt that CME will be well positioned to meet its goal of doubling the wealth of manufacturing in Canada.

Finally, I’d also like to take this opportunity to commend CME for their work in engaging women on their national board. I was pleased to learn that about 25% of their directors are women and that the board wants to see that number grow to 40%.

Congratulations to Rhonda and the CME on this important milestone, and best wishes for continued success in the years to come.

Speaker, as you know, we have a goal in Ontario to be fully accessible by 2025. Members across the Legislature from all parties supported that goal and committed to it. Well, Speaker, we are not on track to achieve it, and we should be. Our communities are stronger and more engaged when more people can access our businesses, community spaces, centres for learning and the workforce.

I challenge all of us to recommit to reaching our shared goal of a fully accessible Ontario by 2025. Let’s get back on track.

Start Me Up Niagara

Mr. James J. Bradley: On November 12, I visited the home of a wonderful organization in St. Catharines known as Start Me Up Niagara, which provides assistance to vulnerable individuals, including the homeless in our community. We were there to celebrate the grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation to improve the building.

On this occasion, Susan Venditti, the executive director, presented me with a framed poem written by one of their clients, Sam Mannella. It reads as follows and refers to Remembrance Day:

Let their names shine forever;

Across the passage of time and generations;

Beyond the great horizon and

Night’s sad hour;

Remembered with a flower;

The poppy; stained with the blood of the brave;

For it is our lives they did save.

For they left their lives down the sunlit paths;

To mark the tragic way with courage and valour

Never a new generation will forget;

To respect and protect all epitaphs;

Like the great monument at (Vimy) Ridge;

It took a century to design and create.

The monument echoes brave voices if you listen carefully;

Especially during a strong cross wind.

A timeless, priceless piece;

Reaching out to the sky,

How fitting!

For soldiers once saw the sky fall;

Fall on their dreams and aspirations,

But those dreams became a reality for all of us.

Thank you brave women and men.

We all will remember and salute you.

Chapman’s

Mr. Bill Walker: Chapman’s Ice Cream has been served up sweet