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

September 29, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2015-Sept-29 (PDF)

L101 - Tue 29 Sep 2015 / Mar 29 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 September 2015 Mardi 29 septembre 2015

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Health care funding / Financement des soins de santé

By-election in Sudbury

Privatization of public assets

Pharmacists

Privatization of public assets

Climate change

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Energy policies

Government accountability

Municipal planning

Pan Am Games

Executive compensation

Deferred Votes

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

Members’ Statements

Walk or Run for Georgetown Hospital

Maya Mikhael

Northumberland–Quinte West Day

Big Brothers Big Sisters

Pension plans

Polycystic kidney disease

Advancing Women Conference

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition

Michael Burgess

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Petitions

Health care

Missing persons

Lung health

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Employment practices

Environmental protection

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Air quality

Gasoline prices

GO Transit

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 16, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

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

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex had completed his discussion, and we’re now moving into questions and comments.

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Speaker, just a comment on the comments made by the previous speaker. Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, is a very important and very comprehensive bill, because there is incredible opportunity, when development and building occurs, to ensure that when the development is completed, there are services and infrastructure like roads, transit and sewers that are a part of the project so that the project affords existing residents some services.

You can imagine how complex it is with all the building, construction and development taking place across Ontario. So we have to have a comprehensive way of ensuring that when development takes place there is proper transit, parks, schools, sewers and road construction. That is why we need this act. It’s a very thoughtful process—a lot of consultation with all the partners—to come up with a more streamlined, comprehensive approach to building communities.

I know that in my own riding I have four towers, the Treviso development, going up at Dufferin and Lawrence. What they did there, which was very smart, is that they had retail space on the main street, on Dufferin and Lawrence, and kept the built form on the main street. Then, out of the development charges, we have a new one-acre park in behind the development so that the local residents can use and enjoy this local park. That’s part of the process that this act, Bill 73, deals with.

As I said, it’s complex and comprehensive, and that’s why this is needed.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure to provide a couple of minutes of questions and comments on Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. As most people who have been following the debate know, this is a very comprehensive bill; it’s a large bill compared to some of the bills that are before us.

As someone who served at the municipal level, both as an elected official as a local mayor and also later in life as a CAO of a municipality—Ontario’s 444 municipalities watch this government very closely when it comes to planning legislation. I think some of my colleagues have, in the past, put on the record comments like “legislation before consultation.” I think municipalities really are looking for leadership from all three parties.

I can remember, back when I was a mayor, the most contentious debate in the council chambers in Brockville back in those nine years I served was the year we started development charges. It was a very heated debate; it was a very divisive debate, both in the council and in the community. Growth and managing growth in municipalities is a very delicate balance at the council table.

The one thing that I want to put on the record today—and it seems, over and over again, that this government has a one-size-fits-all model for planning and development in the province. I would just caution them, because, as all of us know, the 444 municipalities are all different. We have some small, we have some big. I know in my riding of Leeds–Grenville, just the fact that we were one of the last, if not the last, counties to have a county-wide official plan. That was an extremely divisive debate, and those members that lived in small rural communities wanted growth. They wanted development, and they felt that this government wasn’t listening to them.

So I guess my two minutes of questions and comments are that the government needs to tread lightly and needs to consult municipalities throughout the process.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s always a pleasure to stand and to talk about Bill 73. The title is an appropriate title. The Liberals usually give these fancy, snazzy titles: Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence pointed out an interesting point that I thought was very helpful: When there are projects, when there is development construction happening, there is allocation for recreation and parkland. That’s a smart thing. I know in London we are very conscious of green space. People want healthy communities, and healthy communities mean park space and bike trails. So it’s very good to see that in there.

I did also appreciate the

section where it says that for appeals, you appeal—part of the plan has to be designated. You can’t actually appeal the whole plan, because, like the member had talked about earlier, communities are setting these long-term plans and then someone just comes and opposes the whole plan. That means they have to start all over again or argue the whole plan, so it’s nice that they actually have to pick an area of that plan that they have a contention with. Sometimes, in the area of the bill that I read, was justify the appeal—don’t just make frivolous complaints against the plan.

I hope that this will help cities plan for the future development that they actually need and make smart growth in communities, because I know London wants to grow in leaps and bounds and make sure we’re a viable city, and keep our students there—and make a quality of life for everyone in all cities throughout Ontario.

There are many great cities that I’ve been to. Last week, we had, in Prince Edward–Hastings, a wonderful event. I was inspired by going to some of those cities, for the apple festival in Cobourg, I believe it was.

We all have our strengths in our cities in Ontario, and I hope this will help build those strengths towards a future growth in many of our communities.

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

Mr. Arthur Potts: It is a delight for me to stand up here and bring comments to the member from Essex, who had an opportunity to speak at great length about this bill. What we saw, of course, is an opportunity for a member who represents smaller municipalities across the province of Ontario and who brought some very reasoned comments about how this bill provides some of the flexibility that I believe is necessary for smaller municipalities. It was great to hear about his riding and some of the opportunities it will create there.

We’ve also heard from members who represent mid-sized communities and large-sized communities who recognize that, while this is a very comprehensive bill, I believe it’s a piece of enabling legislation which provides the kind of flexibility municipalities need in order to advance development.

We can still have, and municipalities will continue to have, very heated debates about whether the charges are up or down and what the best strategy is for their community to move ahead and create development, create jobs and create growth, while protecting the kind of green space that others have talked about, or putting in the infrastructure that’s necessary, whether it’s transit, sewer, waste water treatment etc.

Now, in the riding of Beaches–East York, probably the most contentious issues for us are around large-scale developments. We have opportunities, under

section 37 of the Planning Act, where developers can put money toward community amenities, community centres and such. We have a wonderful development going up on Kingston Road, where a YMCA has partnered with a funeral home and a developer who has bought up a whole tract of land. As a result of this development and the

section 37 monies and some of the development charges and the co-operation of the city, we’re putting in two levels of YMCA, with swimming pools and tracks and recreation rooms and community meeting spaces, because of the way the developer and the community have been able to leverage some of the tools that are in the City of Toronto Act under the Planning Act in order for them to move forward. I believe this bill will give some of that flexibility to municipalities across Ontario, and we look forward to them taking it up.

The debate has gone on a long time here. Maybe it’s time we move this to second reading so we can get on to some more important business.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker. Thanks to the members for Eglinton–Lawrence, Leeds–Grenville, London–Fanshawe and Beaches–East York for their comments. It is a comprehensive bill; nevertheless, they missed a whole—it’s a comprehensive issue and a complex issue involving municipalities, involving growth, involving sustainability for those municipalities.

What I find ironic is that this government did roughly a year and a half of consultation with municipalities and stakeholders on this bill specifically, yet when it comes to the sale of the largest asset in the history of the province, Ontario Hydro, they have done absolutely zero consultation—none within municipalities. They’re hearing from municipalities loud and clear; however, they are not prepared to talk and take this issue to the streets to get some ideas, and to hear the concerns that residents have, that businesses have. Municipalities have serious reservetions about the effects that the sale of Ontario Hydro will have on their communities.

Nevertheless, they missed a whole lot in this bill. I’ll just touch briefly on a couple of things. It still allows too many appeals to the OMB. They missed that completely. It’s a measure of reform that was established in Bill 39, by the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Their own member has proposed a lot more reforms that would go a lot further than what the government is proposing. It’s a half measure, something we see regularly on the part of the government. They are not fully prepared to take the steps needed to support municipalities in smart growth. This is pseudo-smart. It’s a half measure.

It’s something that potentially can address some of the minor problems, some of the low-hanging fruit. But to actually bring in real reform, I think they would have to take a more comprehensive approach to reforming the OMB.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from—it’s a big one—Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker. I want to engage in this debate on Bill 73. It’s called

an act for smart growth. I don’t believe there is much smart about this bill at all. But I am pleased to see that the minister is here, because I do want the minister—I expect the minister—to be engaged in this debate and listening to the comments.

I’m going to start by saying that, first off, our whole structure of government is based on the underlying principle of a distributed form of government. We have our federal government to take care of national affairs, provincial governments to take care of those jurisdictions that are best suited to be dealt with at the provincial level, and then we have our municipal governments, which are clearly most and best suited to take care of local issues such as planning, such as garbage pickup. There are many, many different, important functions that the municipality has.

But that structure of a distributed form of government is lost when it comes to our planning laws, and I think it’s lost completely in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I want to share some examples with the minister today, and maybe he will have an opportunity to respond in questions and comments.

I’ll give the House this example: The town of Perth has an official plan. It was approved by the council of the town of Perth. It was also approved by the Lanark county approval body. Then, that official plan was once again approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing—three levels to have this official plan for the town of Perth approved.

Once it was approved, they went to work. There were three developments planned in Perth. If all three developments had gone forward, it would have resulted in a 1% deviation in the population forecast from the official plan. I want that to be clearly understood by the minister. If all three developments had gone ahead, the population of Perth would have been 1% greater than the official plan called for.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed and prevented those developments from happening based on the 1% problem. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing frustrated, obstructed and prevented the town of Perth from growing. For a number of years, they had them tied up and frustrated in OMB appeals. Eventually, the town of Perth gave up. They gave up dealing with the bureaucracy and the frustration of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and they agreed to only do two developments, which would result in a decrease from the population forecast in the approved official plan—1%.

I think everybody in this House would normally expect that if you got to your target with a deviation of 1%, you should have a pat on the back. You should be applauded for your thoughtful, intelligent and purposeful meeting of those targets. Instead, the ministry frustrated and objected; 99% was not good enough for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Lost opportunities for work, lost opportunity for tax revenues by the municipality, lost opportunities throughout the community and, of course, lost money and time for people who have invested in that community, and these are people who were born in, raised in and are strong contributors to the community. Their town wanted it, their county wanted it, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his bureaucracy said, “Not good enough—99%, not good enough.”

We see the same thing happening throughout rural Ontario with development. I know most Liberal members represent densely populated urban areas, and I understand that perspective; I understand their focus, but there is more to Ontario than just densely populated urban areas, a great deal more. And the people who live there and work there and make this province strong ought not to be penalized and punished by an obstinate, frustrating bureaucracy in Toronto who has their focus on high-rise condos on Front Street. There is more to Ontario than that.

We’ve seen this with the obstinacy of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on development in rural Ontario and development on private roads. A great deal of my riding is developed on private roads. To all the hundreds and hundreds of lakes and rural areas in my riding—people get to their homes on their private roads. This ministry has been obstructing and preventing development on private roads for a number of years now. Our communities cannot—Soo, why don’t you listen for a little bit instead of just making little—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Hand gestures.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —little hand gestures from the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member is to speak through the Speaker and not engage in contact or verbal discussions with members across. Thank you.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker. Maybe you want to have a chat with the member from Scarborough–Agincourt about hand gestures in the House.

This bill does not address the concerns, the comments, the troubles and the problems of the Planning Act in rural Ontario. In fact, it exacerbates them; it makes them more difficult. For now, there will be no changes to an official plan for at least two years: no zoning bylaws, no amendments, no variations for two years. Once an official plan is done, it is locked in and there’s no discussion about it. Things change. We can have plans, but they may deviate a little bit and we need to be flexible enough to deal with those deviations, like that onerous, onerous misprojection of 1% on the three developments in Perth.

The member from Beaches said that this bill brings flexibility to the Planning Act. Well, he either hasn’t read the bill or his idea of flexibility would not be found in the Oxford dictionary. Others might say he’s talking BS when he says this bill offers flexibility—anything but.

I would ask the minister—he’s here today. He’s heard my comments about the town of Perth and he’s heard my comments about private roads. During the questions and comments, Minister, I would love to hear your rationale for preventing the municipality, the town of Perth, from proceeding with their developments because their forecast was off by 1%. Would this bill have prevented your ministry from bringing that appeal forward and obstructing the desires and wishes of the elected council of Perth and the councillors of the county planner?

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a great pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I’m happy that I’m here today to listen to the comments from my good friend from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. Last week, he had the opportunity to rise—was maybe tripped as he was rising and he got scooped, but I’m happy I was here nonetheless to hear some of his comments that he made this morning.

He talks about an opportunity for the government to capitalize on in order to bring real change, real reform. He talked about, within his constituency, the frustration that is there on behalf of constituents, on behalf of municipalities, on behalf of many in his area. He talked about an opportunity where there was 99% of his particular communities who were in favour of a certain project, but that just wasn’t good enough.

Well, that “not good enough” is particularly the theme of this opportunity under the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. This is just not good enough. There could have been a lot more. It’s a missed opportunity, for real OMB reform is something that is not within this bill. We had Rosario Marchese, who was a real champion of reforming the OMB. I miss him; I wish he was here. I miss his colourful character, but hopefully we will gain from his experience that he brought here—

Mr. John Yakabuski: God bless.

Mr. Michael Mantha: God bless, God bless.

Something that is also missing is an opportunity to bring real inclusionary zoning within the content of this bill. These are real, concrete steps that could have been in this bill and that could have brought real reform, but unfortunately, they are not within this bill.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

Ontario has changed a lot over a period of years and time. Some of the most evident examples of this are found right here in the greater Toronto area and in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South.

As we know, it is a huge province. It is a very wide province, the size of France and Spain combined. While most of our residents live near the Great Lakes and that is where most of our urban and industrial development is focused, there are, of course, hundreds of communities scattered across the province. As legislators, and even as ordinary citizens, we travel around our province and see its beauty, its diverse communities, its many ways of life and its natural beauty, especially during this season of change.

We all have a stake in ensuring that Ontario remains beautiful and that it continues to be the best place to live, work, play and raise our families. That is what this legislation is all about. I understand that the majority of the members support this bill. It is about time that this passes second reading and is referred to committee, where all members from all parties can hear from the stakeholders, experts and their communities, and if they choose so, they can move amendments to strengthen this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? We have the member from Simcoe–Grey

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh no, no.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Oh. False alarm.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is my pleasure to speak for two minutes to this bill. I hope I get the opportunity to speak longer and I hope that the government doesn’t deny me, because I know they’re thinking about putting a closure motion on this.

Mr. Steve Clark: Guillotine—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The guillotine.

I’m going to say to the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington: He’s bang on. This is the concern that I have with this bill: that you are hampering rural communities even more—the member from Mississauga basically just said that—hampering municipalities in rural Ontario that need to be able to develop those tracts of land. They cannot grow up; nobody is going to build 40-storey condos in Barry’s Bay. They have to be able to build lots on those lands that are available. Where you guard are the people who have an intensification problem down here.

The problem with this government is that everything is viewed through the lens of a large urban community, and they fail to recognize the reality of rural Ontario time and time and time again.

This is an opportunity to do something right with this bill and not, again, put a wedge between yourselves and the people in rural Ontario who need to be able to continue to exercise some of that freedom when it comes to developing the land that they are entrusted with.

I want to take an opportunity in the few seconds that I have left to shout out to my brother Konrad Yakabuski, who is 50 years old today. He is the last of our family to hit the half-century mark, so I want to congratulate him. A lot of you might know of Konrad. He is a journalist with the Globe and Mail, and a lot of people say, “He can’t be your brother, Yak. No way. He’s too smart. He writes good columns. He makes a whole lot of sense. There must be something wrong there.” But in fact, he is my brother, my youngest brother, and I wish him the very, very best and continued great journalism. Have a fantastic 50th birthday. Welcome to the half-century club.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This is a great opportunity for us to discuss the way we have grown so far and the way we need to really look at growth moving forward. If we look at the growth in certain urban communities and we look at the suburbs surrounding those urban communities, we know that there has certainly been a lack of proper planning.

Now, I agree that there are different rules that should apply to different areas. Rural Ontario has different realities, and that is something we should certainly account for in our planning and in our strategies. It’s important to account for that. But when it comes to urban centres and the suburbs surrounding those urban centres, the sprawl has not benefitted the residents.

In cities like Brampton and Mississauga, sprawl has made cities very unlivable in a lot of ways. Intensification, strategically done, is something very important. It’s integral to building sustainable communities, communities where you can live, work and play. In many of our communities it’s not possible to work in the same community where you live. They have become sleeper communities.

It’s also the fact you can’t get around in certain communities without a car, and that seriously limits certain people: young people who can’t drive and older people who don’t want to drive anymore. To make a vibrant society, there need to be real ways to get around, to move, to enjoy your communities without driving; that can’t be the only way to move around. So we need to really work on developing societies where people can walk and bike and move around, particularly in urban and suburban communities. I really think we need to look at this.

In addition, and this is a very sensitive topic and we have to do this with a great deal of care, there is only a limited amount of very good agricultural land in Ontario. If we want to really develop an autonomous and sovereign land, you need to have access to food. If we don’t ensure that our crop land, the land that can be farmed, is protected, then we are in a position where we can’t even grow our own food and we severely impact our own sovereignty. So it’s an issue we need to address, as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for final comments.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to thank the members who engaged in the questions and comments that were relating to my debate. The Liberal member provided us with her rehearsed and scripted talking points that had nothing to do with my debate, nothing at all. I had asked the minister, or his parliamentary assistant or anybody, to answer some questions out of my debate; they chose not to. They chose to sit there and play with BlackBerrys or whatever else, but they chose not to engage in debate. They chose not to try to respond, not to try to justify or explain or provide a rationale why the ministry is obstructing and preventing municipalities in rural Ontario from growing.

Why are they obstructing municipalities from growing? Why do they have such a narrow band of latitude? When a municipality comes up with a development proposal that is 101% of its target, why is it that 1% over is unacceptable and gives cause to the ministry to spend untold hundreds of thousands of dollars appealing that development through the Ontario Municipal Board, as well as putting further cost on the municipality to bring their lawyers into the OMB and still frustrate them? I’m disappointed that the minister—or anybody on the Liberal benches—chose not to engage in this debate and not to explain their actions to this House.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is always my pleasure to stand in this Legislature and speak on issues that are important to people across our province and people across our communities. Today, I have the chance to bring my voice to the debate on Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. This bill has been the subject of much debate, and we have heard from many of the members of the House. Many of my New Democrat colleagues weighed in and discussed the strengths and shortcomings of this bill.

This bill includes some welcome improvements to the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, but it falls short. It misses opportunities and the chance to tackle some very real issues faced by our municipalities and our neighbours who live—and often struggle to live—in our communities.

Something that is missing from this bill—but fortunately has not been missing from the discussion, thanks to the New Democrats on this side—is the fact that we need housing and development growth. Ontario should be removing needless barriers and costs that prevent the construction of affordable housing.

Affordable housing is about more than rent or a mortgage; it is about the expenses necessary to keep it running, to keep it warm, to keep the lights on, to keep food on the table. Where is the acknowledgment by this government that Ontarians need predictability when it comes to their homes? People need costs to be stable and fair so they can budget what little they might have to keep up with the cost of living underneath a roof.

Waiting lists in communities across Ontario are growing quickly. Durham region is a region of growth, but also many families are forced to leave their houses and find affordable rental housing, and often it doesn’t exist. In Durham, the average wait time for housing is nearly four years for non-senior singles and couples. Seniors wait just over four years. According to the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association’s 2014 waiting-list survey, more than 165,000 households were waiting for community-based affordable housing. In Durham, wait times are increasing, and 2013 numbers have us sitting at over 5,200 households on that waiting list.

Existing housing that isn’t properly maintained or supported is a reason for so many people to come into my constituency office in Oshawa. The state of repair or lack of investment in our existing housing infrastructure is appalling. This is a government, however, that—I’ll give it to them: They really like their shiny new announcements. They want the positive press of announcing a new building or a new program. If only they thought it was flashy and exciting to make announcements about recommitting to funding or making repairs or fixing current programs.

Those programs that were once new and have proven that they are worthwhile are often left to languish and scrape together what they can without support or government attention or acknowledgment. If only it was exciting to recut a ribbon, not just cut a new one.

We heard at AMO that too many times this government is not being the partner that they could or should be. We hope that will change. Certainly, in a region that is east of Toronto but not east enough to be Ottawa, sometimes we beg for scraps when it comes to infrastructure, transit or housing investment, and that isn’t right.

I would like to share some specifics and statistics when it comes to my region of Durham and Oshawa. The region of Durham published their housing plan for 2014 to 2024 called At Home in Durham. It proposed four main goals: to end homelessness in Durham, to ensure that rent is affordable for everyone, to see greater housing choice and to ultimately have strong and vibrant neighbourhoods. This document outlines the challenges and proposes a plan to address the ever-increasing need for more affordable, available housing. I’m going to read the

section that discusses the way the government can support these initiatives.

“The federal and provincial governments have vital roles to increase the supply of affordable housing, and availability of and access to support services. They must also support local planning and service delivery related to housing and homelessness.

“Although the province recognizes that Ontario’s municipalities are the largest contributors to funding for housing and homelessness services, and that the future of affordable housing depends on sustained funding, there is no long-term funding commitment from the federal or provincial government to support local planning and service delivery.

“The region, in collaboration with its partners, will continue to advocate for the funding commitments and legislative and policy changes necessary to support the implementation of At Home in Durham.”

As in communities across the province, there are challenges faced by many individuals and families in many neighbourhoods. Oshawa is a city with a population of about 157,000, and it is the largest city in Durham region. Just east of Toronto we have been seeing steady population growth over the past 20 years, but in about the past five years our growth has increased substantially. We have a lot of competition for the little affordable housing that does exist. We have three universities in the area and a huge need for student housing.

We have families and single individuals vying for anything that might be available, and there isn’t much. Our vacancy rate for one and two bedrooms is below what is considered balanced for a community, and if we consider public housing units, those vacancy levels would be far, far lower. We have many people earning minimum wage, currently $11, or who are on basic pensions.

I would like to read from a submission from Cornerstone to the CMHC related to the need for affordable housing in our area: “Individuals who are paid minimum wage and working full-time (35 hours per week) earn less than $1,540 a month before taxes. Households spending more than 30% of their income are generally considered to have a housing affordability problem. In Oshawa, these individuals have to spend nearly 44% of their gross income on an average rent bachelor apartment and 57% of their gross income on an average rental one-bedroom apartment.

Finding available and affordable apartments can be very challenging. Individuals whose only source of income is based on CPP/OAS (basic pension for a single senior) have to spend 61% of their income on renting an average rental one-bedroom apartment in Oshawa. The average cost of rental housing in Oshawa is also not affordable for those dependent on financial assistance, particularly single persons.”

Speaker, I’d like to tell you a bit about Cornerstone Community Association Durham. Cornerstone provides men’s shelter and support. It is an organization that provides services to individuals who are homeless and require support to be in the community. They provide 40 beds of emergency shelter, 15 beds for individuals returning from correctional facilities, 10 units of transitional housing and 56 units of permanent housing.

Another awesome example of a partner in our community providing support is the YWCA. They also offer second-stage housing. I’d like to read to you a bit about that:

“The YWCA Durham provides the region’s only second-stage housing program for women at risk.” The women “will find safe, supportive and affordable housing and meals. The program also provides a peer network, professional counselling, advocacy and job and life skills development.

“Over a maximum 24-months stay, these women will gain the skills, connections and confidence to achieve long-term success and independence in Durham region.”

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to tour and spend an afternoon at the YWCA. This is an organization that does so much with the little that they have, but with the never-ending need for affordable and safe housing for women, their challenges are increasing. With the cost of hydro and gas steadily increasing, they’re worried they won’t be able to provide the level of support that is needed.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most wonderful parts of this job is the opportunity to connect with organizations that look after the needs in our community.

We have an outreach centre called the Refuge, and they provide safe refuge for youth in our community up to age 24. They recognize that youth are struggling.

There are unbelievable challenges in our community, and we’re doing our best to meet them, but we need support from the government.

We’re debating a bill called the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. There is nothing in it about the need for affordable housing. I could talk all day about the need in my community, and I wouldn’t imagine that there’s a single member here who couldn’t find real housing needs within their own communities. Why, then, are we not seeing it in this bill? If this government was actually interested in smart growth for our communities, then they would be interested in supporting that growth. Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you, that wouldn’t just be smart; it would be the right thing to do.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It gives me great pleasure to rise today in support of Bill 73.

There are many, many good amendments in Bill 73, and one that really caught my eye is the review of ineligible services to determine if they would be made eligible for development charges. That’s something that we hear from municipalities—and not only from municipalities, but from different groups.

I want to speak about this today because after a recent meeting that I had with the chair of Halton region—they need a courthouse. You’ve heard this, Mr. Speaker, in the House. Every MPP representing this area on both sides of the House—they need a new courthouse. The Milton courthouse doesn’t need any repairs; we need a new courthouse there. The chair, who used to be on your side at one point, sitting in the chair in this Legislature, would like to be able to add a development charge for the construction of this new courthouse.

I don’t know if this would come on time to help Milton and the Halton region, but that is something we need to have a conversation about, and to review what should be in the development charge and what should be out. There is opinion on both sides, so let’s have this conversation.

There are already 50 members who have spoken on this—more than 50—and the bill has been discussed for over nine hours. I think after most of us have spoken, it needs to go to committee where the real change will occur.

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

Mr.

Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend the member from Oshawa for a great presentation on what is in the bill, but, primarily, the one mentioning that there is absolutely nothing in here about affordable housing—not so much that one would expect this bill to come out and say how many units of affordable housing the government is going to provide over the next five or 10 years, but to actually put something in the bill that would encourage the local planning to include that, to help municipalities to be able to afford to build housing, because obviously we know that most of the public housing is, in fact, maintained and provided by municipalities; to have something in there that they could accommodate building that housing, such as including that as part of the charges that new developments would come with.

It’s a municipal service that could be provided.

The minister, when he introduced it, might have wanted to look at my private member’s bill that deals with the Housing Services Corp., which presently is spending millions of dollars to be the bulk purchasing agent for all our public housing, when in fact the city of Toronto says that if they didn’t have to, if they weren’t mandated to do that, they could buy their fuel and their insurance and save $6 million a year, which they could put into front-line housing for the people who need it, the 160,000 or170,000 people who are waiting in line for that. Some of them could be housed with that $6 million.

The city of Hamilton, where the minister is from, could save over $1 million a year if the minister would just allow them to opt out of purchasing it from the Housing Services Corp. and allow them to buy it where they buy their gas and insurance for all their other purposes. I think there’s an opportunity that he could use to further the cause of public housing and meet the concerns of the member from Oshawa.

I also—since I’ve run out of time, I guess I don’t want to do anymore. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This is why I love this place so much, really. It proves that debate is so important. I’m hearing a lot of great ideas—not too partisan; it’s really good. The member who just spoke brought up another great idea that could provide some benefit and support to municipalities. But my colleague the member from Oshawa really zeroed in on one of the most glaring spots of this bill that has been missed: the need for inclusionary zoning.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—we’re familiar with it. It’s a psychological theory about the most important needs that human beings require—food, water and shelter—to maintain human dignity, to be able to prosper as a human being. In this chamber, here, what can we do to support those who are struggling to find those basic needs and to support themselves. Here’s an example of where we could implement that type of support: to bring in inclusionary zoning to make sure that affordable housing units are there. There’s the volume of it.

I’m going to chat with you after, Minister, because I know you’ve got some great ideas, too. It sounds like you want debate to continue on this. But, my goodness, what a simple effect, a simple action we could take here in this House, to large effect—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Wait for it.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Wait for it? We’ve been waiting for 12 years, Minister. Various bills have come through here. We can’t wait any longer. People can’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to remind the member—but I will make it inclusive of all members—that during debates and during questions and comments, please address your comments through the Speaker and not to individuals within the Legislature. I appreciate your co-operation and I will thank you in advance.

Back to the member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Speaker. You know, I forgot about—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Point of order—

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The member lost about 30 seconds, and he was making so much sense, I’d like to make sure we give that back to him.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much, Minister, but you just took another 20 seconds. So, unfortunately, I would like to say, “Back to the member”; however, we have now expired the time allotted for questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Apologize.

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

I’ll give you an opportunity to speak to the minister afterwards.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): All right; there you go.

We’re back to further questions and comments. I recognize the member from York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I’m glad to add my comments to Bill 73. Listening to the debate this morning, it seems that most of the members are in agreement with this bill. They are adding more ideas to it, but it seems that we do have an overall consent to the bill.

I just want to say that what I really like about the bill is the fact that it proposes to enhance citizen engagement. This would require municipalities, for example, and approval authorities to explain how public input affected their planning decisions, require municipal official plans to include locally designed public consultation policies, and not only increase the use of planning advisory committees and ensure citizen memberships are on these committees—that would be tremendously important. For example, it would make a difference in the community I have the privilege to represent, the area of York South–Weston here in the city of Toronto.

We often feel that the community is not consulted enough. I think this would really strengthen that piece. I think we all look forward as members to hear from the municipalities, to hear from the stakeholders how this would affect them. We have the opportunity to see how we can improve the bill in many ways from their perspective. I think that there are some basic, stable elements in the bill that are worth supporting.

I’m looking forward to this bill moving forward and going towards its next step so that we can have public hearings. That’s what we do before we pass legislation: hear from the people. Thank you.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues around the Legislature. Thank you to the member from Oxford. To your point of actually putting something in the bill that would support municipalities and encourage affordable housing, that’s a bigger conversation, and certainly, as we’re being rushed through this one, we will have to look forward to that another time.

Also, thank you to the member from Essex. I appreciated your comments about maintaining human dignity. In our communities, with so many people struggling, it’s not just the people that we think of traditionally either in the margins or struggling in poverty; it’s also people who live in our established communities or in different pockets of the community whose life sometimes happens to—they’re struggling to pay their bills, a child gets sick, a partner loses an income, and they’re forced to change their situation, or life changes it for them. We have people throughout our communities who are in need of affordable and available safe and secure housing.

This is something we need to prioritize, inclusionary zoning, as the member started to talk about before his time evaporated. That’s a conversation and something that the government has said that they support and have in the past. So let’s put that into the next bill we get to talk about.

I had mentioned the Refuge Youth Outreach Centre as being an organization in my community. They serve street-involved and homeless youth up to the age of 24. This is a resilient group of youth who come from all sorts of walks of life and are struggling. I had a town hall meeting with many of the youth recently and they shared with me the difficulty of finding a place to live downtown. If it’s safe and affordable, it probably has already been taken by a family or a student.

Many people are living in precarious arrangements, and they’re the invisible homeless. They’re sleeping on floors and sleeping on couches, and if they do find affordable rentals, sometimes it’s in a building with health and safety concerns, from mold and bedbugs to violence and drug use.

You know what? These cannot be the only options for people. So let’s talk about smart growth; let’s talk about supporting that growth.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Again, this is a very exciting bill. If you go through it, Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure you have, there are some incredibly interesting parts to it that really affect all aspects of living in Ontario, developing and planning our communities, our towns and cities all over this province.

This area is so complex, and, again, this is a bill that deals with so many areas. In essence, what it does is that it lays out a more comprehensive process in terms of the processes for planning and deciding what density goes in the neighbourhood, what amenities, what the development charges are, putting some kind of order into this complex maze of development charges.

In my own area, I’ve got one of the most highly developed parts of North America happening right now at Yonge and Eglinton. If you look at Yonge and Eglinton right now, I think there are about 30 new condominium towers under construction—30. It’s almost the size of the city of Orillia that’s going into the bottom end of my riding. So you need a proper comprehensive process and approval in conjunction with the province and the city of Toronto and its overwhelmed planning department.

As we are building those towers there, there’s also a subway being built along Eglinton that intersects with the Yonge line. There’s going to be a massive new housing development there at the old bus loop at Yonge and Eglinton. You can imagine: All of a sudden, we’re going to have a new city of Orillia right in the middle of Yonge and Eglinton. Luckily, at least there is a subway and there’s a new east-west subway, the Eglinton line that’s being built. But beyond the subways, you have to have proper planning for sewers, for roads, for parks, for schools, so everyone is involved.

That’s why this legislation is going to require municipalities to prepare park plans in consultation with school boards and the public in order to facilitate planning for all of this green space. Right now, it’s very ad hoc, so this is a critical part of this bill.

I know that in my own riding we had one great success in terms of planning and preserving our heritage in the Yonge-Eglinton area. There is the famous spot where William Lyon Mackenzie held his ground in the Rebellion of 1837. It’s the famous spot, Montgomery’s Tavern, whereby a democratic government was established in Ontario at that time, in the Rebellion of 1837, and we have the historical spot where we have a postal station that was built: historic Postal Station K.

At that spot on Yonge and Eglinton—Canada Post, as you know, has had a sell-off of all its postal stations across this country, sadly. Here, they were going to basically give away this historic site to unbridled development. Luckily, the community mobilized. We got over 10,000 people to sign a petition. We marched on city hall. We had rallies. In fact, we brought the petitions up to Ottawa. We were able to preserve Postal Station K for future generations. It’s a beautiful, iconic building, one of the few buildings in all the world that’s got the mark of Edward VIII on it. That’s quite rare. It’s an art deco building by a great architect, Brown. So we were able to protect that.

What we did was, we had an agreement with the developer where the developer was going to preserve this historic building and he was going to build his building behind the historic postal station site and cantilever some of the housing up above. We now have this building preserved. We have a new public square there called Montgomery Square. So we’ve kept some green space on Yonge and Eglinton, and we’ve got this historic building, along with all these new buildings. But that took a lot of work. It took two or three years of the public getting mobilized and incredible cooperation.

This is the type of thing that this act tries to put in a systematic process. I’m glad that in the bill, there’s also a reference to

section 37. I don’t know if the members here are familiar with

section 37, but

section 37 means that when a development occurs, the city or town council can go to the developer and agree to have amenities put in place as part of the approval process. The problem with

section 37, as you know, in Toronto, and especially in the GTA, is there are hundreds of these

section 37 agreements that take place, but there is no full transparency in it. In other words, what was approved? What was received? What were the amenities? What was the cost? Is there any plan? It’s been very ad hoc. In this act, there is an attempt to try and formalize the

section 37 intensification that’s taking place. It’s a very important part of this bill.

I know the member from Oshawa made a good point that this bill will deal with—and that is in terms of the approval process. When developers build in an area, perhaps there should be some

section 37 or other development charges for soft services; in other words, whether it’s supportive housing, or housing for the infirm or whatever. It’s not only for transit and sewers. So in this legislation, there’s a potential to have some of these development charges for soft services, social services, which are just as important as sewers and transit and roads. That’s why I just ask everybody to look at this bill. It is a very meaningful bill.

As you know, we’ve had about 10 hours of debate on this thing. What we have to do now is bring in all the local municipalities, all the local experts, all the public stakeholders who want to speak to this bill. They can’t do it in this House. They can do it in committee. That’s where the real changes will be made as we get this input from these people who are knowledgeable and affected. That’s why the committee stage is critically important.

I just ask the members here that—we need to get this comprehensive expert input from our people out in the community. I think we’ve heard good information here from over 60 speakers, and I think we need to hear from the people out there. It’s critically important to hear from ordinary citizens. The people need to be heard on this bill because it affects all of our communities.

I think we’ve spent good time. As a result, Speaker, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence has moved that the question now be put. Having had the opportunity to listen to debate now for over 10 hours, it is my opinion that the—recognizing that the question has now been put, is it the pleasure of the House that the closure motion be made? I heard a no.

All those in favour of closure, please say “aye.”

Keeping in context with them, all those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Following question period this morning, there will be a vote—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): There will be a deferred vote—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, but you haven’t decided if there’s enough debate. You haven’t said that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Yes, I did.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He mumbled.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): To the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I’ll ask you to come to order. Thank you.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since there is no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. John Yakabuski: As the PC energy critic, I’m happy to see the Canadian Nuclear Association here at Queen’s Park today. Dr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the CNA, is here along with member companies to discuss the impact the nuclear industry has on Ontario. In 2014, nuclear energy provided 62% of grid power. We welcome the opportunity to meet with the representatives.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to introduce members of the Regional Tibetan Youth Congress: Kunga Tsering, Thondup Tsering, Tenzin Rigdol, Tenzin Dolker and Ogyen Tsering. They’re here on a hunger strike to support the hunger strikers in India protesting the oppression of the Tibetan people by the People’s Republic of China.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not wanting to interrupt the introduction, but I will use this opportunity as a reminder that we are not to read from any materials other than a piece of paper, and even then it’s not supposed to happen. I just offer that as a kind reminder to all.

Further introductions?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce Linda Prytula, who is here with us today watching question period. She is a member of the board of the Ontario Pharmacists Association and, more importantly, she lives and works in my riding of Oakville.

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to welcome Joan Pajunen, who is director-at-large in the Ontario Pharmacists Association. I met with her and other members of the pharmacy association this morning, and she’s from Kilworthy in Muskoka. I’d like to welcome her.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Also, I have the pleasure to introduce Brandon Tenebaum, member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association and, most importantly, a member of my riding of Parkdale–High Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome two good friends of mine who are visiting Queen’s Park. Please welcome Hafeez Rupani and Nadia Effendi to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a director with the Ontario Pharmacists Association and a councillor from one of the most beautiful municipalities in Ontario, Prince Edward county, Bill Roberts, to the Legislature this morning.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome two individuals from the Ontario Pharmacists Association to Queen’s Park today: my friend Sean Simpson, the chair of the OPA board, who lives and works in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Connie Beck from Niagara Falls.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d also like to welcome a board member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association, Christine Ling, who is visiting Queen’s Park from Don Valley West today.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome all the pharmacists that are here today to talk to us about care and service to the patients of Ontario. Especially, I want to welcome Brandon Tenebaum. I didn’t realize he was here. He was a classmate of mine, 1995. Good to see you.

Mr. Michael Mantha: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I’m happy to welcome the Canadian Nuclear Association to Queen’s Park, led by Dr. John Barrett. The CNA and the member companies are here to discuss the importance of nuclear energy, the importance of the 60,000 direct and indirect jobs they bring. I look forward to meeting up with them. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’d like to introduce Fred Bristow, a board member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association who works, lives and plays in Toronto Centre. Welcome, Fred.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome and introduce Jen Baker to the House today. Jen Baker is a member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association board and comes from the riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to introduce someone who is not a pharmacist. Frank Caron is here; he’s sitting in the members’ gallery. Welcome, Frank. He is the husband of Allison Buchan-Terrell, a member of my staff. Welcome.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Mike Cavanagh from the great riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and a member of the board of directors of the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Thanks, Mike, for being here.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I had the great pleasure of meeting members from the Canadian Nuclear Association this morning: John Stewart, Matt Mairinger and Mike Belmore. Certainly, it makes a significant impact on our economy. I welcome them and their colleagues in the House this morning.

M me France Gélinas: I, too, would like to welcome some of the members from the Ontario Pharmacists Association: Deb Saltmarche, Bill Roberts, Christine Ling and Dennis Darby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m also pleased to welcome the Ontario Pharmacists Association to Queen’s Park today, including: Dennis Darby, the CEO; Sean Simpson, board chair; and Deb Saltmarche, past chair, who’s from my riding of St. Paul’s. They’re here with many of their colleagues, as we’ve heard.

The OPA are hosting a reception in the legislative dining room this evening from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. All members of the Legislature and their staff are, of course, invited.

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to welcome Stacey D’Angelo, a pharmacist from Trinity–Spadina and a board member of OPA; and also a student pharmacist, Kavita Puri. I look forward to meeting them this afternoon.

Hon. David Zimmer: It is my pleasure to introduce Bharati Bapat, the aunt of our page captain, Sameer Bapat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Maybe introductions of people who aren’t here yet but will be arriving? I’m seeing none.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Fiji. They are led by the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Inia Batikota Seruiratu. Welcome.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. On March 24, the Premier said, “When I say that I am going to co-operate and have been co-operating with the authorities, I’m talking about the authorities whose responsibility is to conduct the investigation.”

When the Premier says that she’s going to co-operate with authorities, does that include the criminal court assigned to the corruption charges against her key fundraiser? Will the Premier agree to testify if subpoenaed to the trial of Gerry Lougheed Jr.?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Obviously this is an issue that I have taken very seriously. Because I take it seriously, Mr. Speaker, I have co-operated with all of the authorities; I have co-operated in the investigations. I’ve been very open with the Legislature, and in fact, I’ve answered 96—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve heard enough, and it will stop.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve answered 96 questions on this issue in the Legislature. I’ve made dozens of statements in the media and answered questions in the media. I have co-operated with the authorities. I will continue to co-operate with the authorities, as we all have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: The Premier has told the Legislature 40 times that she will co-operate with authorities during the Sudbury investigation. In fact, on February 26, the Premier said that she would “fully co-operate and work with the authorities....”

The official opposition respects the fact that the Premier met with OPP investigators, but her duty is to clear the air, and that hasn’t been done. The people of Ontario deserve to know who ordered Gerry Lougheed to make the phone call and offer the alleged bribe.

This is very clear: Is the Premier prepared to appear before the court and answer those questions?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, I have answered all of the questions that have been asked of me. I have answered 96 questions in the House. If past behaviour is indicative of future behaviour—and I have co-operated with the authorities, I’ve worked with the authorities, I have co-operated with the investigation. I will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, this is as clear as mud. Again to the Premier: We know the Premier has the parliamentary privilege to be exempted as a witness. However, the privilege is not meant to impede the course of justice. The people of Ontario deserve to know what really happened with the Sudbury by-election scandal, so I’m sure the people of Ontario want the Premier to waive that privilege and appear if called to the trial.

Mr. Speaker, yes or no: Will the Premier testify if subpoenaed to the corruption trial of her key fundraiser?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am standing.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have not attempted to avoid answering questions that have been posed to me here, that have been posed to me by the police or that have been posed to me by the authorities. I have worked with the investigation. I have co-operated fully, and I will continue to co-operate fully.

In fact, unprompted, I have made statements in public about the situation in Sudbury. I will continue to co-operate. I will continue to respond to requests by the authorities, as I have done. That behaviour is not going to change.

Health care funding / Financement des soins de santé

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, when questioned about health cuts, this Liberal government refused to take responsibility. This year, the Canada health transfer increased by $652 million. The Liberals shifted $54 million away from this transfer, maybe to a different ministry or maybe to cover up another one of their scandals. No one knows which one it is, Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal government refuses to even acknowledge the $54-million cut to health care.

The decision to cut $54 million was the wrong decision. Will the Premier admit she cut $54 million from health care, from the front lines, at exactly the wrong time?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health is going to want to comment on this, but let me just go over what has been going on in health in terms of the big picture in Ontario.

Since 2003, hospital funding in Ontario has risen from $11.3 billion to $17.3 billion this year. That’s a 53% increase. This year, the health care budget is $50.8 billion. We committed to a 5% increase in home and community care investments, which will grow over $750 million over the next three years. Funding for community support services increased to almost $514 million this year. That’s an increase of $41.9 million over last year.

The fact is that there are 24,000 more nurses in Ontario than there were in 2003. The number of physicians has increased by 5,600—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: These cuts are hurting people across the province, and at the CCACs in my own riding. Last year, a 74-year-old Simcoe county woman, who is nearly blind and had a below-the-knee amputation, had twice daily visits by a PSW to help her bathe and deal with developing sores. When her husband died last summer, the CCAC cut her evening support. Shortly after that, she was notified that she would lose her morning visit as well. At that point, she began developing sores. She couldn’t reach the sores to treat them herself. Her services were restored, but only after she hired a private patient advocate.

Where is the Premier’s compassion? Does she believe patients should have to pay out of pocket to get their service restored, to hire a private contractor to fight for their services?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Notwithstanding the fact that that party, the party opposite, voted against our increase of $250 million annually to home and community care for each of the next three years, the Leader of the Opposition has a chance to redeem himself and redeem his party by supporting—and I think he will, just given the nature of his question—our 10-point plan that we announced earlier this year, this spring, in fact, of important changes to make to our home and community care sector.

Alongside that increase in funding, it’s a 10-point plan that implements in full the results of an expert panel led by the esteemed Gail Donner to help us make sure that the quality of services that we provide is the best that it can possibly be.

So I ask the member opposite, the leader of the official opposition: Will he support our 10-point action plan to improve home and community care across this province?

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

M. Patrick Brown: Ma question est encore pour la première ministre. Le vendredi passé, nous avons célébré la journée francophone. Mais dans ma circonscription de Simcoe-Nord, le gouvernement ferme l’hôpital de Penetanguishene. Ce gouvernement tourne le dos contre les municipalités comme Penetanguishene. Cinquante positions dans la résidence en médecine sont coupées quand 800 000 Ontariens ont besoin d’un médecin. En même temps, ce gouvernement coupe 54 millions de dollars dans le budget de la santé. C’est assez.

Monsieur le Président, quand est-ce que notre première ministre va protéger l’hôpital francophone si important à Penetanguishene?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the minister of francophone affairs.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: C’est une excellente question qui est posée. En fait, je suis très au courant de ce qui se passe à l’Hôpital général de la baie Georgienne et son site à Penetanguishene. Le ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée a indiqué que le site de Penetang ne pourra pas fermer ses portes tant que les services aux francophones ne seront pas transférés à l’Hôpital général de la baie Georgienne.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Ontarians are growing increasingly cynical about this Liberal government and politics. It’s no wonder, considering the Sudbury bribery scandal and people’s disbelief that this Premier could actually sell off Hydro One without any public consultation whatsoever.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Despite the condescending lectures of the government House leader yesterday, there is nothing that says that the Premier couldn’t stand in this place and accept some responsibility for her role and the role of her office in the Sudbury bribery scandal. Will this Premier finally take some responsibility and tell Ontarians who gave the order for Mr. Lougheed to offer a bribe to Mr. Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said to the leader of the third party yesterday, I have spoken on this issue. I have answered questions in the Legislature. Between February 17 and April 2, and including questions in the House this month, I’ve answered 96 questions. All of that is in Hansard. It’s quite clear what my position has been. I’ve made statements in the media, unprompted. So I’m not going to pre-empt the process that is now before the courts, and I think the leader of the third party knows full well that it would be inappropriate of me to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier is right about one thing: This place isn’t a court, where she would have to answer to a judge. This is the Ontario Legislature, and in this place she’s supposed to answer to the people of Ontario. It’s no wonder that people are becoming more and more cynical about politics if it takes being sworn in by a judge to actually get some honesty around here.

Will this Premier finally take some responsibility and tell Ontarians whether she, Ms. Sorbara or someone else in her office instructed Mr. Lougheed to offer a bribe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been completely honest with the people of Ontario. I have answered questions repeatedly in the House. I have made statements in the media. I have responded to questions in the media. I have co-operated with the authorities. I will continue to do that. But this is not a court of law, and I am not going to pre-empt that process. There is an issue that is before the courts, and we have to let that process unfold.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has had opportunities to show leadership. She has had opportunities to accept responsibility for her actions and the actions of people around her. But at every opportunity, she has refused and instead protected Liberal insiders, dragging the reputation of the Office of the Premier of Ontario through the mud, increasing that sense of cynicism that so many Ontarians are feeling about their government.

If the Premier and her office have nothing to hide in the Sudbury bribery scandal, then why won’t she put cynical politics aside and tell Ontarians who it was that directed Mr. Lougheed to offer Mr. Olivier a bribe in Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The questions that the leader of the third party is putting forward are questions that will no doubt be asked in the court. I’m not going to pre-empt that process or presume to know what those questions will be. I have co-operated with the authorities. I will continue to do that.

I think that it is extremely important that everyone understand that we are engaged as a government in making very difficult decisions in implementing a plan that is going to build this province up, that is already building the province up. The leader of the third party can laugh, because she actually doesn’t support investments in transit and transportation infrastructure. She actually doesn’t support making a business environment that allows businesses to thrive. She has opposed all of the actions that we have taken and will continue to take to make sure that this province is competitive and that our economy can grow.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The people of Ontario are watching.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: second time.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Over the summer, I was in every corner of this province. I spoke to New Democrats, I spoke to Liberals, I spoke to Conservatives and I spoke to people who have no partisan interest whatsoever. They all told me the exact same thing: They are frustrated, they are worried and they are angry that this Premier is selling off Hydro One without ever consulting them. They are growing cynical about a government that simply will not listen. Will this Premier address the concerns that people are raising and hold public hearings on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that this leader of the third party perceives that it is in her political interest to make sure that she stirs up any concerns that people might have. I understand that that is in her best interests as she perceives it. Some might say that is cynical. Some might say it is cynical that when people raise concerns—because I know; I travelled the province. I was in every corner of the province, and I know—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, you never heard it, eh?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, I know that there are concerns, but it is my responsibility—and I would suggest it’s all of our responsibility—to tell the whole story, to make sure that people understand that the decision our government has taken is about investing in this province for a brighter future, a more prosperous future, a more competitive future. That’s what the decision is, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What about the 82% of people who do not want to see Hydro One sold off? I think these Liberals should listen to what Ontarians have to say.

Yesterday, we heard that 165 municipalities so far oppose the Liberal sell-off of Hydro One. One of their biggest complaints is the utter lack of any consultation whatsoever by this arrogant Premier. Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said that you would have to actually be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Liberal pre-election budget was talking about selling off Ontario’s hydro utility.

The Premier needs to listen. If she won’t listen to me, then she should be listening to the municipal leaders and the people of this province, who are telling her that they haven’t had a say and that they want a say. Will this Premier allow public hearings, either through the OEB or through any other mechanism, on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad that the leader of the third party raised the commentary that was made by the mayor of Sarnia yesterday, because I had the opportunity to attend the chamber of commerce in Sarnia. I had an—

Mr. Paul Miller: The people have spoken: 85%.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek: second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It was a great opportunity. I think it was one of the first times in recent memory that a Premier had actually been to speak with the businesses in Sarnia. It was a great meeting. I had an opportunity to have a tour.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the number one issue that the mayor of Sarnia raised with me was the building of a road. The mayor of Sarnia wants money for infrastructure. The mayor of Sarnia knows that his and his community’s productivity and competitiveness rest on having investments in infrastructure.

The leader of the third party needs to flesh out her story when she’s talking about—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s no wonder that the people of Ontario are growing increasingly cynical about this government, considering the display we just saw. The cancellation of the gas plants, eHealth, Ornge, deleted public records, the Sudbury bribery scandal and now the sell-off of Hydro One: It’s easy to understand how Ontarians have become so cynical, but it is bad for democracy.

The Premier has said that she wants to do things differently. Well, I would submit that it certainly is not too late. Will this Premier start actually doing things differently, start trying to regain the public’s confidence and hold public hearings before she sells off the first tranche of shares of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said many times, a couple of things: This was a very difficult decision, but the fact is that we must make those investments, including in infrastructure in Sarnia and in every part of the province—Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, northwestern Ontario—all communities that are looking for investment in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.

We made it clear in our budget, in our platform, that we were looking at assets and that we were looking at leveraging those assets so that we could invest in the new assets that we need for the 21st century. It was clear to people—it was even clear to the leader of the third party—that we were actually looking at those assets, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the leader of the third party, on July 9, 2014, said, “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.’” She understood it, Mr. Speaker—

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

Pharmacists

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Speaker, today the halls of Queen’s Park are filled with the most accessible health care providers in Ontario, our pharmacists. Unfortunately, these health care professionals have been an easy target for cuts from this government for the past 12 years, and October 1 is no exception. With your cut to nursing positions throughout the province and your $235-million cut to doctors, pharmacists will see a $150-million cut to their profession.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know my critic is new at the job, but I would have hoped, given his background, that he would know that we have dramatically expanded the scope of practice for our pharmacists across this province, as we should. Very shortly, later in the next month, in October, our pharmacists are going to join us in vaccinating, I anticipate, upwards of one million Ontarians against the flu by administering the flu vaccine in our pharmacies. It’s a wonderful example of increasing scope of practice, but also utilizing our pharmacists to the fullest extent.

These are individuals who have such great capacities and are such an integral part of our health care system. We’re constantly looking for ways that we can take advantage of their expertise, take advantage of their presence in our communities and take advantage of the fact that they have the trust of our communities and the people who live there to make sure we provide that quality health service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Minister of Health: I’ve been a pharmacist for 20 years. I’ve been proud of my profession; however, to just exemplify that pharmacists can only do flu shots is absolutely ridiculous. If you listened to my first question, it’s an expansion of vaccinations across the board. However, hopefully you can listen to my supplemental and come up with a better response for the pharmacists who are here today.

Your government seems to have money to pay out bonuses for the Pan Am Games and, according to the Auditor General, money to create large bureaucracies in the health care system. However, you are continuing to cut front-line health services to the detriment of Ontarians.

Pharmacists have been proven to create immediate savings in the health care system while increasing services. Other provinces have implemented expanded injection authority for pharmacists, expanded smoking cessation programs, and other provinces have enabled pharmacists to treat minor common ailments—all of which would create immediate savings in the health care system.

Minister, why are you so focused on paying the salaries and bonuses of the health care bureaucracy while you wage a war with—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the member opposite, I didn’t raise the issue of expanded access to further injectable vaccines because, quite frankly, I wanted to leave the best for last.

I announced a number of months ago—in fact, it was in our budget—that we are expanding the scope of our pharmacists even further to enable them to provide travel vaccinations, potentially other vaccinations as well. You voted against that budget, but it was there in black and white. I made the announcement a number of months ago as well—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me: Minister of Natural Resources; member from Haliburton. Thank you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would just invite the member opposite to come to the reception tonight and hear from pharmacists and from the OPA how much they are celebrating the fact that we’re increasing the scope.

We’ve created a table to look at further injectables, and we are moving forward in a way that I think, if you actually talk to pharmacists, they’ll agree with.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier: Yesterday, the Minister of Energy tried once again to claim he has a public mandate to sell Hydro One. To reporters, he said that before the election, “We talked about repurposing our assets without being specific.” He said, “There is no government that is ever elected that abides by every single detail of an election platform.... The principle was in the election platform. The specifics were in the budget.”

Some 166 municipalities now, including Peterborough, and more than 80% of Ontarians believe that the sale of Hydro One is more than just a detail. Since your minister now agrees that the sale of Hydro One was not specifically mentioned in her election platform, will the Premier finally admit she has no public mandate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP, the third party, has been criss-crossing the province, telling everybody that rates will skyrocket because Hydro One is going to broaden its ownership. The reality: That is not the case. Last week—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned, and I’m going to remind everyone to use titles or riding names. It does not elevate the debate; it lowers it.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, they’ve been telling everybody the sky is falling and hydro rates are going to skyrocket. The reality is that last week the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Ontario Energy Board has the authority to control rates, to reverse rates, not to give requested increases. In fact, it was Ontario Power Generation before the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada said the Ontario Energy Board rolled back their increases and would not give it to them because of unacceptable costs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I think it’s very telling that the minister wouldn’t answer the question.

I’m going back to the Premier. Before the election, the Premier said she preferred to keep Hydro One in public hands. The Minister of Finance told the Economic Club of Canada, “Public ownership is the key.” Now the Premier says the public should never have trusted her. She says the public should have understood that weasel words like “repurposing assets” or—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not acceptable. Withdraw, please.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Withdrawn—that code words like “repurposing assets” or “leveraging” were code for selling Hydro One; and because the public didn’t understand the code, she now claims to have a mandate to sell Ontario’s oldest and most important public asset.

Is the Premier really saying that the 80% of Ontarians who oppose the Hydro One sale only have themselves to blame for trusting her?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’re talking about whether or not we had a mandate to proceed. The member has a convenient memory, Mr. Speaker. He forgets that around April and May 2014, we had a budget prepared, a draft budget which they would not approve. Before the election, we had a budget which indicated very, very clearly.

We also had appointed before the election the asset council, and they had a specific mandate, including looking at repurposing the assets in the energy sector. It was very, very clear. We’re proceeding with that.

One of our main issues in that election campaign was providing infrastructure to the people of Ontario, which we’re proceeding with. They’re two things in the same issue. The mandate was there, the issue was there, and we’re proceeding with it.

Climate change

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. My constituents in Halton are worried about the impact of climate change on our environment and our economy. Our region is a collection of local parks, rich farmland, conservation areas and the escarpment. Organizations like the Halton Environmental Network and the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation are working tirelessly to keep our riding green and clean.

We know the Earth’s temperature is rising due to increased greenhouse gases. It’s imperative that all governments take action—action to protect our communities, action to protect the agricultural sector and action to protect the air we breathe. That’s why I was encouraged to see yesterday that we unanimously passed second reading of Bill 9, the ending coal act.

Mr. Speaker, through you: Could the minister please inform the House about what action our government has have taken to eliminate the use of coal in Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I actually want to thank my colleagues the Ministers of Energy present and past, because this was remarkable leadership by the energy ministry and our utilities which contributed the largest greenhouse gas emissions reduction in Northern American history.

Some people have suggested that permanently passing legislation to keep this closed is somehow not serious politics. In fact, two other major OECD countries, because of other issues, have reintroduced coal. So we are actually locking down on something that is very serious, building our credibility.

I want to thank the member from Halton, who came to this House as a mum and as a person who’s worked in communications, who well understands the importance of the environmental issues, realizing that these things have to be top-of-mind. I want to thank her for her question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thanks again to the minister. Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I think we could all agree that reducing coal was a significant step in the fight against climate change. I do find it strange, however, that the federal government, which used to be fiercely critical of ending coal, is now trying to take credit for our leadership on this key issue.

We know that action on climate change is vital for the future of our province and that when it comes to this important fight, there is still more work to be done. But I know we are up to the task. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he please inform this House about what other action our government is taking in the fight against climate change?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: One of the things we’re doing is, we’re trying to avoid red tape and regulation that will hurt business. I was interested to hear Mr. Harper yesterday, during the debate, take credit for our coal reductions, given that he has campaigned against them. He’s out there campaigning in British Columbia against Premier Clark’s efforts on carbon pricing. He’s out campaigning in Alberta against Premier Notley’s efforts to reduce carbon. He’s here in Ontario, complaining about our climate change strategy. He’s in Quebec, attacking Premier Couillard’s efforts to reduce it—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the minister to refer that to government policy.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, what is he proposing to do? The exact opposite. He said yesterday that he will be proceeding with a sector-by-sector regulatory approach. This is the antithesis of the cap-and-trade systems we’re involving.

As a matter of fact, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce came out and said that in contrast to a strict regulatory approach, like the federal government is proposing, policies can offer maximum flexibility, carbon pricing policies are much preferable and offer maximum—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. I would deeply appreciate all questions and all answers to be relevant to government policy. When we move over to any other level of government, it’s not appropriate in the House during question period.

New question.

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. The public accounts of Ontario were released yesterday, confirming what we all know: Ontario is the most indebted sub-national borrower on the entire planet.

But we also had confirmed one other item the Liberals denied for over a year: They sold Ontera, the telecommunications arm of Ontario Northland, for $6 million. We stood in this Legislature and said it would actually cost the taxpayers between $50 million and $70 million if they went through with this fire sale. Now the public accounts have confirmed this. They disclose that the Liberals lost $61 million selling off Ontera. How can this government justify this insulting loss to northern Ontario and this outrageous loss to taxpayers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, first of all—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud, of course, of the fact that we made a decision about a year and a half ago to keep four of the five lines of the ONTC in public hands.

The decision to move forward with the sale of the Ontera telecommunications wing was a well-thought-out one and, we very much believe, the right one, a necessary step to enable our government to focus strategic investments on the—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We were determined to focus on the strategic transportation services that are so crucial to moving forward with a sustainable, long-term, efficient ONTC.

While there were short-term costs associated with the sale of Ontera, the costs of continued ownership unquestionably outweighed the short-term costs of the sale—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: I can’t see how this was well thought out. The government took a 100-year-old, $70-million crown asset and gave it away for $6 million. This sounds hauntingly familiar to what they’re about to do with Hydro One.

But it gets worse. The total doesn’t include the lawyers and the consultants who were paid $6.5 million to advise the Liberals. You heard it, Speaker: They were paid $6.5 million to tell the Liberals how to sell something for $6 million.

They’re a laughingstock. They bungled the sale. How do the Liberals expect the people to trust them with the sale of Hydro One when they lost $61 million selling a smaller asset like Ontera?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s at least a tad ironic that the member asking this question is the one who was calling for the privatization of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The fact is, I can pull the quotes out. You’re not against privatization. We know that well. The member knows that, which is why he’s been reluctant to ask questions in the Legislature.

The bottom line is that we made a decision that is in the best long-term interests of the corporation. We will continue to support the ONTC as it transforms its operations and focuses on core transportation services. We worked long and hard to make those decisions, working with the municipal advisory committee, and those decisions were to keep four of the five lines in public hands and to move Ontera into the private sector.

Our government remains absolutely committed to ensuring that northern communities and industries benefit from a viable, efficient and—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh, come to order.

New question.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. It’s simply not enough to stand up and say you value our province’s teachers and education workers but continue to ignore them at the table. Members of this House heard this morning from CUPE education workers, who have been without a contract since September 2014 and are still seeking a fair deal. They still don’t have one. Education workers clean and repair our schools, make sure all the proper forms go out and records are kept, and they provide one-on-one care for students with special needs—a crucial bridge between these students’ complex needs and their educational outcomes. These students deserve to be successful too.

Why won’t this government roll up its sleeves, get back to the bargaining table with our parties in the education system and treat this issue with urgency?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I must say that I agree with the member opposite on one issue. We do think that coming to agreement with our education workers is urgent and essential.

In fact, that’s why we have been in negotiations for the last two weeks, not just with CUPE, which represents many of our education workers, caretakers, maintenance, secretarial, clerical, education assistants, early childhood educators, professional student supporters, lunch-hour supervisors, all sorts of roles that are quite essential in our province’s schools; we’ve also been negotiating with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, which also represents a large number of education workers.

It’s because we recognize the role that those workers play as being so important to our schools that we have been negotiating.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the Premier: We heard this morning how hard, how complex and how diverse the roles of our education support staff workers are in our schools. They’ve been clear in bargaining about what they want, what is best for not only workers but students as well: not a bottom line, not a final answer, but respect.

Why won’t this government get back to bargaining in earnest with elementary teachers and education workers? Why is this government content to create crisis in our schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I can only repeat that we have been focused on negotiating with our education workers because we respect them, because we value them. As I said before, we have been negotiating with CUPE. We’re looking forward to establishing more dates with CUPE. We have been making good progress. I think that there’s real opportunity there for us to come together because CUPE has been quite clear about what it is they’re asking for, and I think that we will be able to come together on our negotiations with that group.

M. Grant Crack: Ma question est pour la procureure générale, l’honorable Madeleine Meilleur.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la procureure générale peut nous mettre à jour sur les activités de son ministère en ce qui a trait à l’accès à la justice pour les francophones de l’Ontario?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Merci à mon collègue et bon ami le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour sa question. Je sais qu’il est un fier défenseur de la francophonie dans sa circonscription.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Question?

M. Grant Crack: Merci à la procureure générale pour sa réponse. Vendredi dernier, la journée des Franco-Ontariens a été célébrée dans toute la province, ainsi qu’à Queen’s Park, avec la levée du drapeau en présence de la communauté francophone. Je tiens également à souligner la présence des francophones dans ma circonscription. J’ai eu le privilège d’être présent à deux évènements dans Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, à Alexandria et à Hawkesbury.

Monsieur le Président, la procureure générale a mentionné dans sa réponse une recommandation portant sur la création d’un projet pilote. Est-ce que la procureure générale peut dire à l’Assemblée quel est le but, la portée et les résultats désirés de ce projet pilote?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Oui, ce projet pilote à Ottawa sera d’une durée d’un an et le but à long terme est de l’étendre à toute la province. Une équipe de projet est déjà en place pour mettre ceci en oeuvre, et ça devrait commencer au printemps 2015.

Moi, j’étais à Sudbury vendredi dernier pour la levée du drapeau. C’était le 40 e anniversaire de notre beau drapeau franco-ontarien. J’étais là avec mon collègue le député de Sudbury, et ça a été une célébration vraiment extraordinaire avec beaucoup d’émotion. Alors, merci à tous ceux et celles qui ont célébré le 25 septembre dans leur circonscription. Merci.

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Speaker, today we learned from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that they have some very serious concerns about the Liberal cap-and-trade tax scheme, a system that we have yet to hear any details about. The Ontario chamber specifically mentioned that the government has yet to release any economic analysis of the cap-and-trade tax and that businesses across Ontario remain completely in the dark about plans for revenue and carbon credits.

What Ontario businesses need to succeed is certainty, yet the Liberal government is rushing its introduction in time for a Paris photo op. Mr. Speaker, when will the minister listen to the Ontario chamber and the greater business community and address the concerns outlined in this report?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to read from the chamber of commerce report. It’s very insightful: “Among strategies to reduce GHG emissions, businesses prefer market-based approaches that put a price on carbon, such as a ... cap and trade system. In contrast to a strict regulatory approach”—which denies businesses flexibility and innovation. Mr. Harper and your leader stand with the following position: “We’re proceeding with a sector-by-sector regulatory approach.”

Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario and the Liberal party stands, with business, opposed to a job-killing regulatory regime, which Preston Manning and Jean Charest say will restrain the economy by 3.7% GDP growth. When will the member stand up against Mr. Brown, the member for Simcoe North, and Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister of this country, and fight the regulations that business doesn’t want and work with this government—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I think we’ve just seen a new revenue tool for this government. They should be taxing hot air.

Back to the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask for temperate language, please.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you, Speaker.

Back to the minister: The last thing Ontario needs is to rush into a system that will cripple business and cost more jobs. In California, the government took seven years to design their program, and in Quebec, it took five years to come up with their cap-and-trade tax scheme.

However, this government is steamrolling ahead with plans to announce Ontario’s cap-and-trade details just seven months after the 2015 budget. We’ve seen the legacy of what happens when these Liberals rush into programs. Just look how SAMS turned out for everyone.

Businesses need to know what to expect; they need to know how to plan accordingly. Will the minister commit to publicly releasing an economic analysis of the cap-and-trade scheme before Paris?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: That’s a rather passing-strange comment for the member opposite. We’ve been at this for years. We passed legislation back in 2008 that involved years of consultation. We’ve been meeting with business on a weekly basis and we are in the middle—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You mean all those consultations in March about carbon were for naught?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce, come to order.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —of a multi-year consultation that goes on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce, second time. You asked the question; listen to the answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We’ve been working with business on a weekly basis.

I’m confused by the member opposite’s questions. Businesses said they don’t want a regulatory sector-by-sector approach, which the leader of her party and the Prime Minister believe in. Preston Manning, Jean Charest, Chris Ragan, the entire Ecofiscal Commission—as a matter of fact, in the US, Citibank’s major study on cap-and-trade shows that you would lose 3.7% of GDP growth over the next five years. With a cap-and-trade system, you see net new growth—

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

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. In the past two weeks, through media reports, we’ve learned that you can be a top procurement executive at Infrastructure Ontario, you could admit to procurement fraud, and absolutely nothing will happen to you. In fact, senior executives at Infrastructure Ontario, and possibly the board, can know about your fraud and you still get to stay in business. Even the Premier’s chief of staff can know about your fraud and, instead of being fired, as would be the reasonable approach, you get a promotion and get put in charge of procuring a $300-million patient centre at St. Mike’s Hospital.

Will the government commit to a truly independent investigation of this fraud and cover-up and make the findings available to the public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question. There’s a little bit of different information that the member’s sharing with the House that’s not exactly accurate. The fact of the matter is, this is a serious matter, and a matter that not only does this government take seriously, but so do the hospitals that have had some association with this individual.

All the hospitals involved to date are conducting third-party analysis and review of the time that individual spent in their hospitals or working on projects there. We’re doing the same prudent and diligent review. In fact, we’ve hired a forensic accounting firm to look at the transactions the person was involved in. We’ve hired a legal firm to look at the issues that the gentleman was involved in, as well as the issues around his departure. I’ve hired a third-party adviser as well to oversee the process, so I think we’re taking the prudent actions we must and I think we’ll continue to proceed in that way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister knows that an outsourced investigation is not the same as an independent investigation. We have evidence of a culture within Infrastructure Ontario that tolerates and covers up procurement fraud, but the government has trusted IO to investigate its own cover-up.

Last December, the Auditor General found that conflict of interest guidelines at Infrastructure Ontario are routinely ignored. The Premier has also stacked the IO board with former executives of companies that do business with IO.

Will this government take this investigation away from Infrastructure Ontario and commit to a truly independent public investigation? Or at the very least, will they invite the OPP to set up a permanent detachment here at Queen’s Park to investigate the never-ending list of scandals that this government is embroiled in?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We are actually taking this very seriously, unlike the member opposite, who seems to want to just play politics with this, which I understand. That’s the role of the opposition.

We’ve got to keep in mind that the alleged actions of this individual took place outside of his work at IO, and the other actions that we’re talking about took place after this individual left IO. This leads us to the question: Was there anything untoward or were there any anomalies that took place during his time at IO?

That’s why we’ve hired a forensic accounting firm to take a look to see if there are any anomalies. That’s why we’ve brought in independent legal advice, to do the same thing. And that’s why I’ve brought in an independent adviser to oversee the process to ensure that the public interest is protected. I think that’s the right action to take at this time. I think it’s being very prudent. We’re taking the matter seriously, as I know, really, the member is. I think we’re doing what we ought to be doing at this stage.

Municipal planning

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: This question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This House has been debating the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, which proposes important changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act.

The minister and other colleagues are aware that before coming to Queen’s Park, I was a city councillor, chair of Toronto’s planning committee, and my driving passion in elected office has been urban planning, city building, and now, province building. For this reason, I’m delighted to be part of a government that has proposed important changes to both the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act that will improve the processes communities and residents use to determine how their neighbourhoods grow, and how to plan and pay for this growth.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister tell this House what motivated these proposed changes, and provide a few examples?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thanks to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for his long-standing and enthusiastic approach to municipal planning.

Speaker, Ontarians deserve a predictable, fair and transparent system guiding how their communities will grow. Over the last 18 months, we have consulted widely with stakeholders, we’ve held more than 20 public workshops, and we welcomed over 1,200 mailed-in and electronic submissions. What did we hear? We heard that Ontarians want to have a greater say in the planning process that shapes their communities.

Changes to the Planning Act, if passed, would ensure residents are better consulted on the future of their communities at the beginning of the process, so there are less late-in-the-game appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Also, it will encourage more parkland and green space across the province. Because of that, municipalities will need to put in place a parks plan—

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

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the minister for that answer. If passed, these changes would make the planning and appeals process more predictable and give more municipalities independence. This is what residents of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and across the province have been asking for.

This legislation proposes changes to the Development Charges Act that will also be critical for smart community growth. It fits into several related steps put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as directed by the Premier in her mandate letter to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, through you, will the minister now tell this House how the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act also proposes to change the Development Charges Act? In addition, what are the next steps the minister will undertake in the coming months that will also allow for important changes in municipal planning?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, through you, the changes we propose to the Development Charges Act aim to give municipalities more opportunities to fund growth-related infrastructure like transit and recycling. It would also support curbing urban sprawl in favour of livable, walkable communities that will help to create jobs and grow our economy.

As the Premier instructed in my mandate letter, we will also be reviewing the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board and updating our Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. Both of these parallel projects will contribute to our work in fostering vibrant and complete communities, with abundant green space, thriving economies and a range of housing choices. Those future initiatives will build on the strong foundation we’ve been busy laying over the last several months.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Every day, Ontarians see more proof that this Liberal government just isn’t in it for them anymore. The Premier’s office is so embroiled in scandal and has set the bar so low on ethical behaviour that even the Toronto Star has had enough. Meanwhile, this minister rewards well-paid Pan Am Games executives with extravagant bonuses while our home care services are in shambles. Again, their priorities are out of step with hard-working Ontarians. Where I come from, you don’t pay a bonus without proof that it was earned.

Speaker, if the minister is so confident that Games executives delivered, why oppose being accountable and transparent by having an independent audit before cutting those cheques?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The last time I checked, the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games were the most successful games in the history of this province. The member opposite knows that we put together a plan working with TO2015. I have to remind the member opposite that the Leader of the Opposition’s government were equal partners at the table for TO2015 when those incentives were put in place.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, these were the greatest games that were ever held in Canada—217 medals for our athletes. The Parapan Am Games were the most successful parasport games in the history of this province. We saw an increase in spending right across the GTA and within the 15 municipalities and Toronto. In fact, we saw an 8.8% increase in debit card and electronic transfers of spending.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s obvious that the minister is confused about the issue. We know the athletes performed, because we can count the medals and the personal bests. We can’t do that when it comes to knowing if the games were on budget. Even the Premier admits that she doesn’t know.

So I’ve made a reasonable request, in the interest of transparency and accountability. Tomorrow, my motion asking the Auditor General to audit the Pan Am Games will be debated at the public accounts committee. Speaker, will the minister write to the committee to support my motion, and will he put a freeze on those bonuses until the auditor can do her work?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member opposite knows that these have been the most transparent games in the history of any sporting event in this country. In fact, when you look around the world and you compare our practices, we’ve had five technical briefings, many of which the opposition didn’t show up to, to actually get the data. Everything was open to FOI, and we’ve had a lot of those requests come through.

These have been very transparent games. We reported a $56-million surplus in infrastructure months ago, and it has only been a month and a bit since these games have been over. We will have a technical briefing, and I believe we will have some great news to share with the opposition around the success from a financial perspective of these games.

Executive compensation

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, former Justice Stephen Goudge released his review of presidential compensation packages at Western University. The review was conducted because of a double salary payout that legally allowed the president to earn almost $1 million last year, a payout that Justice Goudge believes should no longer be permitted.

This is yet another example of this government’s failure to rein in executive compensation. In the last few months, Ontarians have learned about a $4-million wage package for the CEO of Hydro One, million-dollar salaries for CCAC home care contractors, and $5.7 million in bonuses for Pan Am Games executives. Will the minister act now to prohibit million-dollar salaries in the post-secondary sector by implementing the private member’s bill that I introduced in April?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We on this side believe that the people of Ontario do have a right to know how compensation is structured for the broader public sector. That’s why we introduced the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act. It is still a mystery to me why the party opposite did not support that bill. It was one of the more surreal moments in this House, I have to say.

But what I can tell you is, this act enables the government to directly control the compensation of designated senior executives in the broader public sector by establishing compensation frameworks. That work is under way now. We are taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to it. We are balancing the interests of Ontario taxpayers and the need to properly compensate senior executives in our public sector.

Deferred Votes

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

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

Bill 73,

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

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

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

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On April 21, 2015, Mr. McMeekin moved second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act.

Mr. Colle has moved that the question be now put. All those in favour of Mr. Colle’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Brown, Patrick

Clark, Steve

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 52; the nays are 39.

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

Mr. McMeekin has moved second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1151.

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

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Patrick

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLeod, Lisa

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd