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

June 2, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Jun-02 (PDF)

L091 - Tue 2 Jun 2015 / Mar 2 jun 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 June 2015 Mardi 2 juin 2015

Orders of the Day

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

Wearing of pins

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Bear control

Ontario Energy Board

Aboriginal affairs / Affaires autochtones

Privatization of public assets

Class size

Manufacturing sector

Teachers’ labour disputes

TVO documentary

Mining industry

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Order of business

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Introduction of Visitors

Annual report, Integrity Commissioner

Members’ Statements

Victims’ services of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex

Labour disputes

Italian Heritage Month

Ontario craft cider

Anniversary of attack on the Golden Temple

Violence against aboriginal women

Almonte General Hospital

Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan

IRONDames

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Growing Ontario’s Craft Cider Industry Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la croissance de l’industrie du cidre artisanal de l’Ontario

Ending Predatory Electricity Retailing Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination des prix abusifs dans la vente au détail d’électricité

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

Motions

Rainbow flag

Pan Am Games flags

Consideration of Bill 16

Christmas Tree Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour de l’arbre de Noël

Christmas Tree Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour de l’arbre de Noël

Petitions

Curling

Installations scolaires

Lung health

Off-road vehicles

Environmental protection

Water fluoridation

Hospice funding

Hospital funding

Credit unions

Family Responsibility Office

Privatization of public assets

Provincial Framework and Action Plan concerning Emerging Vector-Borne Diseases Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le cadre et le plan d’action provinciaux concernant les maladies à transmission vectorielle émergentes

Orders of the Day

Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

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

Royal assent / Sanction royale

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 April 21, 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): When we last discussed this item, the member from Oxford had time left. The member for Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

The last time I spoke to this bill, in April, I explained why this debate was premature. I explained that the government had only just launched the land use planning review of the greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine and the growth plan. The result of that review will impact the Planning Act. But instead of waiting to hear the results, the minister has already introduced legislation that would make changes to the act. That’s not a sign of a government that’s listening.

We’ve heard that about 3,000 people took time to come out to those review meetings to share their thoughts and concerns. We know that numerous organizations took time to analyze what is working and where there are challenges that could be fixed. They are taking time to put together comprehensive, well-thought-out proposals for changes to make the three plans more consistent, to protect our natural heritage and to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in the protected areas.

But instead of waiting to hear from all those people and organizations, the government introduced legislation to make changes to the Planning Act. I’m disappointed that the government is making partial changes without taking the time to get it right and without waiting for the results of the review to develop a comprehensive plan.

This bill also makes changes to the Ontario Municipal Board process. As you may know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General were tasked in their mandate letters with a review of the Ontario Municipal Board. That review hasn’t even started, but the minister has introduced legislation to amend appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I think we all agree that the system could work better, but we need a proper review to ensure that we make the right changes. Neither of those reviews has been completed since the last time this bill was debated, but there are a number of other things that have happened.

Our party elected a new leader, Patrick Brown, and we are pleased to have someone who is so hard-working and committed to listening to Ontarians, contrary to what this government is doing. Since the last time we debated this bill, the government introduced their budget and increased spending by another $2.4 billion, and the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association released the results of their annual surveys, which show that the waiting list for affordable housing has reached a record high. There are now over 168,000 families waiting for affordable housing in Ontario. That’s what has happened since the last time this bill came forward for debate.

Here’s what hasn’t happened: The comment period for this bill on the EBR Environmental Registry hasn’t finished; numerous stakeholders haven’t finished their analysis of the impact of this bill; we haven’t had the results of the land use review or the launch of the Ontario Municipal Board review; and the government hasn’t taken any action to move forward my bill, the Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, to stop the misuse of social housing dollars. I hope that before the next time we debate this bill, all of these things will have happened.

Mr. Speaker, as I said during the first part of my lead-off speech, municipal planning and the Planning Act are a matter of balance. It’s about ensuring that individual communities and businesses have input into the future of their communities. It’s about addressing concerns while ensuring that the good projects can move forward. It’s about ensuring that families can have a home and new businesses can be built and create jobs, while controlling sprawl, protecting our environment and preserving agricultural land.

In fact, a few months ago before the land use planning review for the greenbelt, Oak Ridges moraine, Niagara Escarpment and the growth plan began, I wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and laid out a number of things we wanted to see in that review. We wanted to ensure that there were full public consultations, that for every piece of property being added to the greenbelt, the owner had an opportunity to comment and provide their input. Unfortunately, when the greenbelt was established, many people did not find out that their property was included until after the boundaries were announced.

We asked that the review look not just at the amount of agricultural land in the greenbelt, but at the viability of the farms and the challenges that the farmers are facing. The best way to protect farmland in the greenbelt is to ensure that the farmers are able to earn a living farming it.

We asked that there be a proper appeals process to evaluate where mistakes were made. For instance, when the original boundaries were drawn in one town, there was environmentally sensitive land that was excluded, but serviced land surrounded by development was put into the greenbelt. There was another case where property was included in the greenbelt because planners thought there was a river located on it, only to find out later that the river was on a neighbouring property.

In another case, there was a settlement area established around a village located in the escarpment which the community says is too environmentally sensitive to develop. They believe that it should be included in the greenbelt and no development should be allowed, but as it stands, there is no ability for them to appeal the designation.

In fact, one of the sections of this bill impacts both the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine because it removes the right to appeal these boundaries in an official plan. It also removes the right for properties included in source water protection areas and properties restricted under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act or the growth plan.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the official plan is not the most effective way to appeal, but currently people don’t feel that they have an opportunity to appeal at all. As I said during my previous speech on this bill, the problem is that right now there isn’t a real appeal mechanism for these land use designations, so it appears that some property owners, in frustration, are appealing the designation in the official plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. That puts municipalities in a difficult position, being forced to defend provincial decisions that they didn’t make.

As well, the Ontario Municipal Board is restricted in their decision because they must conform with or have regard to the provincial policy. We need a solution to this problem, but simply removing the appeal of the land designation in the official plan won’t resolve it. What we need is an appeal process that will deal with problems when an error has been found.

Originally this morning we were scheduled to be debating a government programming motion that would limit the debate on committee hearings for four government bills:

An Act respecting Invasive Species,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin and

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest. Despite the fact that these bills have had limited debate, the government tabled a motion to time-allocate them and ram them through this Legislature. Despite the fact they still won’t be passed until the fall, the government is restricting public input by limiting the committee hearings and holding them all right here in Toronto.

Now, the government wants us to believe that their changes to the rules and community consultation in this bill will increase the opportunities for the public to participate. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. While we support giving municipalities the freedom to design consultations that work in their area, we believe there should be a minimum standard to ensure that the public gets an opportunity to participate.

This bill exempts municipalities from subsection (19.2), which states, “Every person who attends a public meeting required under clause (15)(

d) shall be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of the current proposed plan.” This will no longer apply. Removing the requirement for this

section weakens the public ability to participate in the planning of their own communities.

As I mentioned previously, I also have concerns about the way the government is proposing to create planning committees through this bill. It’s another case where they may have good intentions but will actually reduce public participation. The proposal is to create a new planning advisory committee that would have at least one member who is not a municipal employee or a councillor.

The flaw with this proposal is that many municipalities, such as those in Oxford, currently have planning discussions and make planning decisions at open council meetings, which are regularly attended by the media and members of the public. Concerned citizens have the ability to see the agendas, attend the meetings and make presentations. The local media is there to report on those decisions.

This bill would move those discussions from the council chamber to the back room, where there is less public participation and less media scrutiny. Since the majority of the committee would still be members of council, they likely won’t feel the need to repeat the entire debate and discussion when the issue comes back to council for approval. The public will miss out on that discussion and that debate.

When I spoke to this legislation in April, I pointed out that it added a number of new reporting requirements. In fact, a presentation to the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities described these additional burdens as “traps” in the bill for municipalities. In their analysis of the bill, one municipality said, of the expanded requirements for the treasurer’s statement, “While this is typically covered through the budget worksheets or separate

summary report, the proposed legislation now states that reporting by project is required. These requirements to report on a project basis will be yet another report to senior levels of government that has the potential to consume a lot of time and resources.”

They said that if the changes are adopted, as proposed, it would require them to update or change many of their current practices. They went on to say, “Specifically the proposed financial reporting requirements will involve additional new detailed reporting that will consume time and resources and provide little value-added services at the local level.”

Another municipality said that “changes proposed to both the Planning Act and Development Charges Act, particularly in the areas of increased reporting requirements, may strain staff resources.”

We support better planning and transparency, as do municipalities and organizations like the home builders’ association. I think that the move to increase reporting on the use of

section 37 funds is positive, but at the same time, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing needs to be aware of the overall reporting burdens to municipalities.

When I first spoke to this bill six weeks ago, I challenged the minister to review the paperwork and reporting requirements for our municipalities. I asked him to find an unnecessary report or form to eliminate for each new report the government requires, such as those in this bill. Six weeks later, there has been no sign of progress on that challenge. Since the government programming motion is forcing legislation through without summer committee hearings, perhaps the minister can use part of his summer break to address the challenges and address the red tape and reporting burden faced by our municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we are struggling with in Ontario is affordable housing. As I said earlier, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has recently released their annual survey, which found that there are now 168,000 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Ontario. I have put forward a private member’s bill, the Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, which would stop some of the misuse of money intended for social housing. I again asked the government to work with me and move that bill forward in committee so we could ensure that all the public dollars intended to provide housing go to help those 168,000 families.

But the waiting list for housing is not the only sign that we’re having an affordability problem in Ontario. Affordability is an issue we hear about from seniors on fixed incomes who want to move into a more accessible home. Affordability is also an issue we hear about from young families who are forced to commute long distances each day in order to live in a location they can afford.

The Royal Bank of Canada’s report Housing Trends and Affordability, released in March, states, “Solid home price increases in Ontario were” a main factor contributing “to the slight erosion of housing affordability across Canada in” the fourth quarter of 2014.

Craig Wright, senior vice-president and chief economist for RBC, said, “We are watching Toronto pretty closely as it’s a market that time and time again shows deteriorating affordability—indicating that owning a home in the area, especially a single detached, is a stretch for many local homebuyers.”

This is another example why the land use planning review should have been completed before this legislation was introduced. Part of Places to Grow is an effort to encourage municipalities to intensify. We have also heard from a number of experts about the need to encourage more intensification around transit. But this bill does nothing to support those goals.

A recent study by Pembina found that “because there is a lack of affordable location-efficient homes, homebuyers often are forced to move into car-dependent suburbs.”

While American cities such as Washington, Seattle, New York and Denver are looking to policies to create more affordable housing around transit, this government is proposing policies that will have the opposite effect. This bill will increase development charges and make housing in Ontario less affordable. Development charges are the fees that builders pay to municipalities to fund infrastructure such as sewers, water and roads. They are needed for many municipalities to afford the infrastructure necessary for these new homes. But at the same time, we need to recognize the impact on the cost of housing.

As the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore said when he was chair of Toronto’s planning and growth committee, “What many people assume is the developers pay. Well, the reality is purchasers pay.”

Development charges become part of the cost of a home and are passed on to people purchasing new homes or condos, or renting an apartment, and that cost is significant. In 2009, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. found that government-imposed charges, including development charges, represented up to 19% of the median price of a single-family new home. The Greater Toronto Home Builders’ Association reported that for a $440,000 family home, over $25,000 goes to development charges.

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario commissioned a report called Alternatives to Development Charges for Growth-Related Capital Costs. It found that development charges are now $30,000 to $50,000 per single-family home in high-growth municipalities surrounding Toronto. By comparison, it found that development fees in Calgary and Edmonton are less than $8,000 per unit.

This bill would increase development charges and therefore the cost of housing in a number of ways. First, it would remove the 10% discount on transit costs. It would allow development charges to be charged on planned future services instead of historical services. It would remove the list of items that are exempted from development charges from the act and allow the government to choose which to exempt. That means that new homeowners and businesses could now be paying development charges to pay for cultural or entertainment facilities, including museums, theatres and art galleries, or to fund a new city hall or a tourism facility such as a convention centre.

One of the items that was previously exempt was the provision of waste management services. The government has already indicated that under the new regulations, municipalities will now be allowed to have development charges cover the cost of that. In fact, there have already been municipal requests to expand it further and allow development charges on all of the previously exempt items, including cultural, tourism and entertainment facilities.

I understand why municipalities want the additional development charges. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet and provide the infrastructure and services their residents want. Part of the problem is a provincial government that is more focused on blaming others than taking responsibility for the challenges that municipalities face. This year, spending in the provincial budget increased by $2.4 billion, but the Ontario municipal partnership grants that municipalities depend on were being cut again.

Whenever questions are raised, the government tries to duck the issue by blaming previous governments, but after 12 years in office and huge increases in spending, the truth is this government could have changed funding to municipalities if they had wanted to. They could have changed responsibilities and programs. The system and challenges that exist today are the responsibility of this government and no one else.

It’s this government that in the budget proposed municipalities sell some of their assets to help pay for transit. It’s this government that is proposing to increase development charges and pass the cost on to new homeowners and businesses instead of helping municipalities find ways to make ends meet.

And it’s this government that may propose further increases through their working group established to look at “more complex land use planning and development charges issues, and propose solutions.” Again, I have the concern that these are issues that the government should have researched and consulted on before introducing this legislation. And again, these are items that are just going to force the cost of housing to go up.

We cannot have a full conversation about the affordability of housing in Ontario without talking about the spiralling cost of hydro. The Ontario government is now proposing to sell off the majority of Hydro One. Once that asset is sold and the money is spent, it’s gone; 30, 40 or 50 years from now that transit will need to be refurbished and updated. The people will still only have 40% of Ontario Hydro and, based on this government’s plan, will still be stuck with the debt that’s presently there. That’s like selling part of the house to pay for the monthly gas bill—or, in Ontario, more likely selling it to pay the hydro bill.

Which raises the second problem with this proposal: The Premier already admitted that she can’t guarantee that the price of hydro won’t go up. Spiralling hydro costs are already a significant problem in Ontario for homeowners and businesses. Those increases, along with things like the increasing development fees proposed in this bill, are already convincing businesses to choose other jurisdictions and are already making homes unaffordable.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other concerns that was raised about this legislation was the changes to the rules around parkland. As you know, new developments are required to contribute a percentage of their land for parkland, or they can provide cash in lieu. If municipalities choose to take the money instead of the land, this bill would change the amount that they’re entitled to, from a rate equivalent to the value of one hectare for 300 dwelling units to a rate of one hectare for 500 units proposed. The rate for actual land given would remain at one hectare for 300 units.

While the goal may be to encourage more donations of land for parks by increasing the value that the municipality receives, the reality is that already many municipalities take the land and sell it at a later date. This would just encourage more municipalities to do the same. The land they get may not be in the right place for a park, they may have already have enough parks or they may just decide that they need the money more.

In one of my communities, we ended up with a park the size of one lot in a subdivision right across the street from a large playground and ball field. The county had to maintain the lot, but it wasn’t used or needed because everyone went to the great park across the street. Eventually the county sold it and ended up with the money anyway.

While the goal of this change is good, the result is that we’re going to put municipalities in a position where they are going into the real estate business. Rather than simply getting the payment from the developer, municipalities will spend time dealing with real estate agents. This isn’t the best use of their time and it isn’t where they have the experience. As we have discovered too often when governments start taking on the functions of the private sector, it often results in inefficiencies and costs the taxpayers.

There are also a number of concerns about the freezes on appeals proposed by this bill. It’s another example of unintended consequences. This bill introduces a freeze on appeals following the adoption of a new official plan. This means that no rezoning would be allowed unless it is initiated by the municipality. I understand why the government would want to include this section, but I think we need to be cautious of the unintended effect of this change.

It will result in a small window during which businesses can actually appeal to make zoning changes. The reality is that the approval process of an official plan can take a long time. In fact, I recently received a resolution from the town of Halton Hills that raised concerns about the fact that it took four years to complete their official plan conformity amendments. Then there will be a two-year freeze on top of that. Once the applicant can initiate an appeal, it can take two years to get it completed. That means that a business applying for a change to the official plan to be allowed to build and create jobs can wait years for the ability to do so.

Minister, while it isn’t an official plan freeze, I think we all know from our experience in municipal government that no one wants to make changes to the official plan in the year or two before it comes up for review. Again, that leaves a small window for change.

Both municipalities and home builders raised concern about the proposed two-year moratorium on minor variance applications following an owner-initiated zoning bylaw. Home builders are concerned that this would leave property owners unable to make even minor adjustments and would actually result in more delays and appeals. One municipality said, “This proposed amendment is overly restrictive and limits the ability of local communities to deal with unique site-specific circumstances that may occur from time to time.”

I appreciated the opportunity to raise the concerns about Bill 73. I know I’m starting to get short on time, but before I finish I want to talk a little bit about the importance of debating this bill. I think it’s important to recognize the difference between regions in our province, the differences in municipalities and the difference in how land use planning will impact communities, people and organizations within it.

This bill attempts to achieve a balance, and it’s important that all members have the opportunity to talk about whether the government has achieved that balance for them and for their communities. I think we need to hear from the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook about the impact on tender fruit lands in his communities and the need for growth in order to have enough population to get the services they want. I think we need to hear from the member from Dufferin–Caledon about whether the bill achieves balance between growth at the south end of her riding and the protection of the escarpment.

We need to hear from the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane about how this bill would impact northern Ontario.

A couple of months ago, when I met the mayor of Kenora, I pointed out his office is closer to Calgary than it is to Toronto. We can’t assume that the policies that work in Toronto or Ottawa or even Oxford will work for them.

The only way for us to be assured that their community will be well served by this bill is for their member to speak to it and, if it passes second reading, for us to have full committee hearings so we can hear from NOMA, from FONOM, from ROMA and from AMO; so we can hear from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association and the Ontario Road Builders’ Association; so we can hear from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; so we can hear directly from the mayors and councillors who will be impacted by this bill

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Oxford. I just wanted to let you know that I was allowing you to finish your last run-on sentence. So I appreciate that.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I enjoyed the speech from the member. I think it’s important that he pointed out the fact that, particularly with this type of bill, it’s very important for us to get the input of the municipalities that are impacted by it.

Far too often in House, committee hearings are being limited to Toronto when the reality is that folks who are being impacted by bills have completely different realities in different parts of this province. The fact that committees are limited to Toronto really limits the voice of those municipalities that are going to be affected by many of the changes. I think it’s absolutely important that we have committees that travel to different parts of the province to allow their voices to be heard.

I think it’s also important, as the member stated, to ensure that various members of this House are given an opportunity to share their concerns. As with committees, members who come from different parts of this province have completely different realities, and we need to find the commonalities and find ways that we can build a bill that would actually address the concerns of the various and varied needs in this province. Like the member mentioned, there are areas in our province which are closer to Calgary than they are to Toronto, so for us to assume that Toronto would have the voice to speak to their needs is somewhat a mistaken notion.

I think, again, it’s very important, as the member stated, that we make sure this bill is addressed by as many voices as possible and is given as broad a base in terms of outreach and response so that we can address those varied needs.

I grew up in Windsor. The realities of my town of Windsor were different from the experiences that I experienced in London or in Toronto, and I think it’s important for us to address that reality. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; it was my pleasure.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure to say a few words about the comments from the member from Oxford.

I think at the outset the member said, “What’s the rush?” I hear over and over again that we’ve been in government for 12 or 13 years and we’re not getting things done, so I was hoping their new leader would set them straight a little bit.

He talked about lack of consultation. The member should know that the minister has been consulting since last fall, before the legislation came out, to get the input, and we’ll be consulting some more.

He talked about how there’s nothing in the bill about OMB. He also should know that there’s a separate process to deal with the OMB, because it is very cumbersome. So it’s something we need do.

He says that this will create onerous reporting requirements for municipalities. Frankly, the reporting, for the vast—the majority of municipalities are doing that already, and we’ll be there to help other municipalities achieve those goals.

He talked, once again, about lack of consultation. Municipalities have to form what we’re calling a community planning permit system where it will allow ratepayers to get involved from the outset. On planning issues and review of the official plan, there will be local input.

We’re also talking about the fact that we know how onerous it is for municipalities—I was there for 12 years—to review official plans. By the time you were done, it was time to start again. We’re proposing to extend that from five to 10 years. We’re making the plans a little bit more flexible so that the development charges can be extended to things like transit and waste diversion.

I think we need to move on on this piece of legislation.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand in support of my colleague from Oxford today. We need to recognize in this House that he carries this file with tremendous expertise and commitment as a past mayor and past warden within Oxford county. With that, he absolutely gets it in terms of the importance of involving municipalities.

For goodness’ sake, we saw the demise and the frustration and the absolute lack of respect that has evolved since the Liberals enacted the Green Energy Act in 2009. We can’t go down that path again.

We do get worried when we contemplate Bill 66. It’s another Liberal bill that has the potential of ripping yet more autonomy away from our local municipalities. We’re going to be talking about that in more detail.

We have some very specific asks because, quite frankly, when the member from Oxford touched on Hydro One, and a couple of weeks ago we had a rally on the front lawn under the spirit of the tagline “Enough is enough”—quite frankly, when it comes to the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, we’re saying back to the government, “Enough is enough.” Let municipalities do what they’re meant to do and, for goodness’ sake, take into consideration, as the member suggested, the regional differences across this wonderful province of ours.

I say that sincerely, because at the ROMA convention this past winter, we heard the Premier, in her address, reference the fact that we should be applying a lens on all policies. Quite frankly, that’s one of our asks with respect specifically to Bill 66. We need to lay down a lens that NOMA and ROMA work together on—it’s called the rural lens—to just see exactly how policies suggested by this government can work conversely and handcuff our municipalities. Quite frankly, they are the closest to the taxpayer; they are the ones that should be dexterous and left open to deal with the issues as they see fit at the local level.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Windsor–Tecumseh. No, not Windsor–Tecumseh?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Further debate?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No. Questions and comments.

I now recognize the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you very much, Speaker. The member from Windsor–Tecumseh is ahead of himself. He’s actually a visionary in a lot of ways. I’m really looking forward to his debate on this Bill 72,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. That’s what it’s called. But really the catchy title for this bill is the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. And there’s no other way to say it: We need to have smart growth in our communities, in our cities, in our province.

One example that I’d like to highlight is that just last week the government cut some funding to MTCU, which affected some growth in the city of London. So what has happened is, they’ve cut this program for small business entrepreneurship to start up and help the economy—a driver to help small businesses start up. There was an

article in the paper, and I got some calls in my office about how this is not going to help London grow, because we know that a lot of the heart and soul of our economy, in our city and our communities, are small business. They create local jobs. There are lots of spinoffs in the community with regard to small business growth. We’ve seen exponential growth in small business entrepreneurship in London.

Our Western Fair Farmers’ Market: There are a lot of new initiatives that have been created through small entrepreneurship in London. Smart growth also extends to those small businesses that actually want to thrive and make Ontario a better place to be and to create jobs. That’s something that growth is about. It’s about creating jobs. If we don’t have that creation of jobs, unfortunately a lot of our cities aren’t able to grow in the ways they’re intended.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Oxford for final comments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the members from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Northumberland–Quinte West, Huron–Bruce and London–Fanshawe for their kind comments. I just wanted to touch on a couple of the questions and comments, and I’d like to make some comments on what the parliamentary assistant for Northumberland pointed out, all the consultations that have taken place in getting here because the minister has been talking about reviewing the Planning Act.

I just want to point out that my first involvement with reviewing the Planning Act was when the NDP were in this room and the bill was Bill 163, and I was the municipal representative on the provincial committee to talk about planning in Ontario. That was the first comprehensive Planning Act that the province had. It takes a long time and a lot of consultation to get what you need. It has been changed a number of times.

I just want to point out that the minister announced the review of the growth plan, the escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt, and all of those reviews are part of the Planning Act and Places to Grow. It all goes back to the Planning Act.

Yesterday, I met with the representative from the greenbelt. They said that one of the things they needed in all the legislation—they didn’t, I guess, realize that we were going to be debating this bill today—is that we needed to bring a uniformity about them so that definetions in the bills were all the same. I would think that the minister would want to wait, in passing a bill like this, until that review was completed.

Mr. Todd Smith: That makes sense.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It just doesn’t make any other sense to me that that’s what they would want to do; that they would want to make it work for the benefit of everyone.

In London–Fanshawe’s comments about helping people through the process so they could move forward with their business, I just want to point out that the OMB process needs to be defined. People should be able to get something done in a matter of weeks, not a matter of years. This change is not here, and yet we’re dealing with reviewing the OMB. I think we need to review it more and wait with this one until we have all the facts.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Once again, I am honoured and privileged to have the opportunity to stand here in the Ontario Legislature as just one of 107 voices bringing the views of my constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh to, in this case, the debate on Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. I might surprise some people because I’ll be saying some nice things about this bill, and of course I’ll be saying some not-so-nice things about the proposed legislation. No surprises there; that’s why they call us critics. Being the critic for municipal affairs and housing, I’m expected to oppose some things put up by the minister. On the other hand, if he’s doing something I like, I’ll be the first to tell him so.

I do have a bit of experience in municipal affairs. I served seven years on city council in Windsor. During that time, I was also elected to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ national board. I served three terms there. I was also elected three times to the provincial association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I’m a former chair of the large urban caucus and a former AMO vice-president. So that’s why I was delighted when my leader, Andrea Horwath, appointed me our party critic for municipal affairs and housing. But, Speaker, enough about me.

Many of us were hoping this proposed bill would go further than it has. For example, we were hoping for real changes to the process that allows the Ontario Municipal Board to override the express wishes of Ontario municipalities.

We were hoping for the government to show leadership on what is known as inclusionary zoning.

We were hoping affordable housing would be a higher priority for a government that likes to tout itself as progressive and governing from the activist centre.

We are disappointed in the government yet again.

You know, you can fool some of the people some of the time—and this bill makes that attempt—but you can’t fool the people who were counting on more in this bill to help them find safe and affordable housing through inclusionary zoning.

Let’s talk about affordable housing just for a few minutes, and let’s start here in the Toronto area, where so many of the Liberal members come from. Toronto Community Housing has 58,000 units. Some 164,000 people live in these 58,000 apartments and homes. By comparison, let’s look at it this way: 164,000 people are living in the city of Toronto’s subsidized housing units and the entire population of Prince Edward Island is 145,000. Basically, if you do the math, that’s 20,000 more people living in subsidized housing provided by the city of Toronto than live on Prince Edward Island.

That’s staggering, but consider this: There are 165,000 families on the waiting list to get into subsidized housing in Toronto.

The city of Toronto is just one provider of social housing in the GTA. There are more than 240 community-based co-ops and non-profit organizations also providing social housing in Toronto.

The city’s social housing unit supervises more than 93,000 subsidized units, including more than 2,600 rent supplements with private landlords. When you include those numbers, we have more than 78,000 households currently on the active waiting list for social housing in Toronto. That’s just Toronto, let alone the rest of the province.

Many of these people are currently housed in overpriced, sometimes illegal and unregulated apartments. To finalize my point on the need for the government to do more for those most in need of housing, the waiting list I just mentioned—families on that list have to wait anywhere from two years to nine years, depending on the number of people in the family and the location of the units that become available. You’ll wait an average of more than six and a half years in the city of Toronto. It’s worse in the region of Peel, where the average wait time is almost eight and a half years.

I don’t envy the people who run Toronto’s community housing program, but I do thank them for their service to those most in need in this part of the province. They face tremendous challenges every day and they are one—and just one—of the 1,400 social housing providers across our great province.

Late last month, there was a newspaper story in the Toronto Sun, Speaker. Maybe you’ll recall the headline: “Tory Gets the Hammer Out.” Toronto mayor John Tory is seeking more than one and a half billion dollars from the provincial and federal governments to fix the city’s crumbling housing stock. The mayor and former leader of the Ontario Conservative Party spoke of the moral obligation that the Liberal government in Ontario and the Conservative government in Ottawa have so that housing units can be maintained. Only 64% of Toronto’s subsidized housing units are in good or fair condition, while 35% are rated in poor shape and 1% are said to be in critical condition.

The city paid close to $200,000 for an outside study to evaluate their housing units. The outside experts say that unless money is spent on repairs over the next eight years, more than 90% of the units will be in poor or critical shape. That should scare everyone in this chamber, because if you think we have a housing crisis now in Toronto, wait and see what happens, unless the three orders of government can get together and fix the assets now before they rot away.

Think about this for a moment. Let me highlight it for the Liberals representing Toronto-area ridings: Unless you help find the money to help out—we’re talking about the Toronto Community Housing stock—4,000 homes will be in critical need of repair within four years; 12,000 homes and apartments will be in critical condition by 2023; and 7,500 homes and apartments will be uninhabitable if repairs aren’t made over the next eight years.

In my area of Windsor and Essex county, we face similar challenges with our stock of subsidized housing, and it’s no different anywhere else in Ontario, just on a smaller scale.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is interested in affordable housing. He’s engaged in a review of the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, which was launched in mid-April. I know others have questioned why that study wasn’t done earlier so the results could have been included in this bill, but that will be a discussion for another day, I’m sure.

When the minister introduced this bill, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, which amends the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, he talked a lot about putting the pieces of a puzzle together. He said, “The last piece of our puzzle, and perhaps the most important piece, involves the discussion around affordable housing.” To continue the minister’s quotation, he said, “I’ve always believed that a truly complete land use planning picture—the whole puzzle—must indeed include affordable housing.”

I fully agree, and I agree with the minister when he concluded that portion of his opening statement with, “We all need to understand that planning and housing are linked, and that we can’t complete this puzzle without making sure we have a healthy supply of affordable housing in Ontario.”

Those must be comforting words to John Tory, the mayor of Toronto, who has been asking the province, like I say, to step up to the plate with $864 million to pay a third of the costs of repairing the crumbling housing stock at Toronto Community Housing.

So that begs the question, why bring in this act at this time when the minister has barely launched his public consultation with an endgame of updating the government’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy? I trust the minister will understand why some of us question the timing of these events.

It is unfortunate, but municipalities have grave concerns about the way this government conducts its business. For example, heading into last summer’s election, municipal leaders thought they had a deal with the government. One of AMO’s top priorities—and it has been a top priority for several years—was getting control over the rising costs of municipal insurance. The way to do that was pretty simple: Municipal leaders told the government of the great need to reform joint and several liability costs.

Lawyers see municipalities as having deep pockets, so thousands of cases are launched against villages, towns, cities, counties and regions, which may only have a small, indirect connection to the case, but if the other parties don’t have the money to pay, the municipal vaults are expected to open and pay what the others can’t.

The Conservative member from Perth–Wellington, my good friend Mr. Pettapiece, won unanimous consent from all parties on a private member’s resolution a year ago, in February, four months before the June election, calling for a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue. Hints were given that—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—changes were on the way. Then there was an election, and bang, the Attorney General said, “We decided not to move forward with changes to joint and several liability cases,” leaving municipal taxpayers on the hook.

Municipalities were treated shabbily. That decision has cost this government a great deal by way of a loss of credibility with municipal leaders. A trust has been broken, and so any changes the minister brings forth will certainly be scrutinized much more than ever before.

Let’s look at development charges for a moment. We’re all aware of the planning principle that growth should pay for growth. Councillors in the city of Windsor, for example, just recently voted unanimously to increase the residential development charges by 47% and to increase the commercial development charges by 150%. The increases will be phased in over a five-year period. That’ll take residential development fees from just over $18,000 to nearly $27,000. Commercial charges will go from $48.33 per square metre to $120.99.

Those new rates took effect just yesterday, on the 1st of June, up more than $2,100 on a new home and more than $18 a square foot on commercial permits. Why did they go up? For one thing, Windsor’s development charges are the lowest in the province for a city of 200,000 or more. Mind you, there are still incentives for builders wishing to put up new projects within the older parts of the city such as in the downtown core.

Are there concerns from the builders? Absolutely. Do they predict we won’t see much in the way of new homes being built? Absolutely.

By contrast, Speaker, let’s go back to your area and talk about the Leamington example. In a bold move to spur new development, the municipality of Leamington did something totally different. The mayor and council in Leamington eliminated development fees all together: It’s a three-year experiment. That move seems to have lit a fire under some local developers. For example, the Piroli group jumped in. Mayor John Paterson says there are two new subdivisions under way, including an $80-million residential complex aimed at retirees.

As you know, Speaker, down in Canada South, we have the 100 Mile Peninsula, and local realtors have been busy across the country attempting to bring retirees to Windsor and Essex county. Three industrial projects are said to be in the works for Leamington, as well, because of the free development charges. Leamington needs an economic boost as much as any community. The H.J. Heinz plant has new owners, but it is not yet the economic generator as the former operation was to our region. Leamington used to charge almost $13,000 in development fees.

The town is using a reserve fund of nearly $9 million to offer the free incentive to developers.

The Leamington example has kicked off development debates across the region. The town of Essex is now wrestling with a scaled-down initiative. Instead of offering a free deal, Essex has a half-price option on the table. Initially, town officials thought it would spark interest in the Harrow area of the town. However, councillors said, “Hey, why just Harrow? Why don’t we do it all across the town?” So they’re working on the wording now and will hold a special council meeting in a few weeks to tie up the loose ends. This, of course, is in sharp contrast to Windsor, as I referenced earlier.

Some folks say we’ll be losing new home buyers to the county; maybe, but with all due respect, the city has more services than the smaller towns, and with those services do come higher costs.

People have been moving to the suburbs for lifestyle choices, even though many of them still travel back and forth to the city for work, shopping or entertainment. Like I said, the basic principle has been “growth shall pay for growth.” At least, that was the traditional method. So the jury is out until the final Leamington results are in, and the Essex experiment will have its own tale to tell.

Speaker, I know I’ve only been here less than two years at this point, and I accept that I still have a lot to learn about the way the Liberals do their business. But it’s perplexing at times, and let me give you a prime example.

My friend from Etobicoke–Lakeshore Mr. Milczyn introduced a private member’s bill, PMB 39, an amendment to the planning statutes. A key focus of his bill is inclusionary zoning. As a former city councillor in Toronto, the member is well aware that for years, New Democratic members, such as the member for Parkdale–High Park, Ms. DiNovo, and former members Rosario Marchese from Trinity–Spadina and Michael Prue from Beaches–East York, have had bills on the table calling for everything the new member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore has introduced.

It’s a worthwhile history lesson, because inclusionary zoning would allow municipalities the ability to bring in planning bylaws that would guide developers who want to build 20 or more new housing units.

Mr. Milczyn’s PMB would make it mandatory that developers make some of those new units available to people who require affordable housing. His bill is almost word for word that of Bill 5, introduced by the member for Parkdale–High Park, and her bill was based on the one that was introduced by the former member for Trinity–Spadina, Mr. Marchese. In fact, Ms. DiNovo has introduced her own inclusionary zoning bill five times in the past six years. The Liberals accepted these bills in the past but allowed them to languish in committee.

The question I have, Speaker—and I sincerely hope the minister will respond to it at some point—well, actually, I guess I have two questions. Why isn’t Bill 39, introduced by the Liberal member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, not a key component of Bill 73? Because it’s all about smart growth in our communities.

The second part: If the Liberals accepted a bill—all of the previous bills on inclusionary zoning from the member for Parkdale–High Park and the former NDP members from Beaches–East York and Trinity–Spadina—why, during this review of the act, hasn’t the wording of those bills been woven into this Bill 73?

Surely, even if you don’t want to credit New Democrats with a good idea, put it in there and credit your own member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, a former city councillor in Toronto. By the way, Speaker, a number of downtown councillors in Toronto have already put in place an informal inclusionary zoning policy on their own, because they grew tired of the lip service from this Liberal government.

Speaking of lip service, let’s turn for a moment to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Liberals have promised for years—since 2003, actually—that they were going to rein in the powers of the OMB. Now, in all fairness, this bill does change the wording on some OMB issues, but it really does nothing to harness the extraordinary powers of the OMB.

Speaker, just in case you may hold the opinion that each and every province and each American state has a similar board with equal powers—not a chance; not even close. We, in the Ontario bubble, may think giving such extraordinary powers to a planning tribunal is the norm. It is anything but. Nowhere else can planning appeal tribunals make up their own rules. Elsewhere, they follow the rules that have been adopted by provincial, state or municipal authorities. Only elected members of government are supposed to create policy and write laws. The Liberals have given the OMB too much power.

Speaker, you remember Bill Davis. I do. He was a pretty good Premier—a Conservative. Back in his day, the Conservatives, under pressure from voters, overturned, by cabinet decision, the OMB decision which approved the Spadina Expressway in Toronto. Unfortunately and inexplicably, this Liberal government back in 2009 gave away its power to review OMB decisions. Go figure. No one knows why; no one understand it; no one gets it, especially those who get hit by really outrageous appeal decisions by the OMB.

Here’s an example, and this is why we were hoping for a better bill. It’s a sad story from the region of Waterloo. The good folks there spent 10 years developing an official plan—10 years, they worked on it. The intent was to curb urban sprawl. The intent was to encourage transit-friendly, compact development. The local politicians endorsed the plan; the community got behind it. The provincial government gave it their stamp of approval because it fit perfectly into the government’s Places to Grow Act.

Speaker, you’ll recall that that act was designed to prevent urban sprawl. But lo and behold, some developers appealed, and the Ontario Municipal Board stepped in and said, “Too bad, so sad,” and allowed a sprawling development that is more than 10 times what everyone else had approved and endorsed. Imagine: You spend 10 years working on a plan that wins wide support; then the OMB steps in, and army boots clump all over you.

Municipalities are used to being gored by the OMB, but in the Waterloo region they took a huge chunk out of the credibility of the provincial government as well. They basically ripped up the Places to Grow Act by virtue of this ruling.

The region is appealing. The province said it would, but unless I’m mistaken—I could be wrong—I don’t think those appeal papers have been filed. The decision came down in January 2013: Ten times the sprawl, a great loss of farmland, much less green space, and increased threats to the groundwater. Shame on the OMB.

Here are a couple of more examples of how this bill could have been improved, and they both have to do with the OMB. A couple of years ago in Richmond Hill, the town council passed a parks plan. It had a formula for parkland dedication and it was based on the number of units in any new development. That makes sense to me. I hope it makes sense to you: The more people, the more need for park space. But the developers objected to the OMB—surprise, surprise. The result? No surprise: The OMB rewrote the rules that the councillors had laboured long and hard over. The OMB ruled that it doesn’t matter whether you build new units for 75 people or 750; the parkland dedication should be the same.

Imagine, Speaker; get a picture of this in your mind: a little bit of green space; 75 families using that little bit of green space. Now picture this: Push them aside, put 750 families on that same little space that 75 people had occupied, and the OMB says, “Yes, that’s okay.” I don’t get it; I hope you don’t get it either. Something just doesn’t compute with OMB decisions.

That’s another reason why we were hoping for real changes in the act to the Ontario Municipal Board. No one—and I repeat, no one—at that appeal argued for that. The OMB just made it up, made it a rule, pulled a number out of thin air: 25%. That’s right: 25%. To the OMB, parkland dedications for developments denser than 75 units would be capped at 25% of the lands being developed. It would be cheaper for the developers to pay the cash and go laughing all the way to the bank.

In fact, the commissioner of planning and regulation services for Richmond Hill says that this decision will lead to less parkland and will shortchange the town’s parks plan by $70 million—$70 million in one community. That’s what this OMB decision will cost the good people of Richmond Hill. Why isn’t real OMB reform a major part of this bill?

Unelected members of the Ontario Municipal Board making up crap like this on the fly, undoing the hard work and long hours of study the elected officials of Richmond Hill put into the parks plan—no wonder the town is appealing this decision.

My friend Karen Scian is a former councillor in the city of Waterloo—actually, she refers to herself as a “recovering” city councillor, not a “former” one. She has a blog called Bein’ Scian. Early last month, she wrote about the OMB and its decision to favour the out-of-town developer of a new Costco on the city’s west side. It’s a dispute over traffic flow and who should pay for what.

The elected council in Waterloo voted to ensure the developer paid because the existing infrastructure wouldn’t be able to handle the huge increase in extra traffic—in other words, as we talked about before, development should pay for development, growth should pay for growth—but the OMB felt otherwise, and that case is also under appeal.

The Liberals have been promising OMB reform since they ran on it as a campaign plank in the 2003 campaign, and we are still waiting. You can’t fix Ontario’s land use planning system unless and until you fix the OMB.

So the developers in Ontario have friends on the OMB. When it comes to inclusionary zoning, the home builders in Ontario have friends in the Liberal government. Otherwise, a person of rational thought and common sense would deduce what else would be preventing inclusionary zoning from being a part of any Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. We all know we need more affordable housing in this province. Inclusionary zoning would help with that tremendously. Instead of lip service, those most in need of better and safer housing that is affordable need action, and they need it now.

It’s not only the tenants who are expecting more in this bill. Landlords were also hoping their cries would be heard as well. They’ve been lobbying the minister for reforms. Many of them get stuck with enormous energy and water bills from their local utility providers. In most cases, lease arrangements put the onus on the tenant to pay for the heat and water, but when the tenant skips out of town, leaving unpaid bills behind, the landlords get stuck with the bill.

Landlords are looking for legislation that allows them to track whether the people that are living in their buildings are keeping up to date on their utility bills. I accept, Speaker, that there is a right-to-privacy issue here, but I can also see the other side of this coin, where a good landlord, operating on a small margin, can lose his or her investment if too many renters skip town without paying their bills. I would hope the minister’s creative staff can at some point turn their thoughts to this dilemma and make it more of an equal playing field.

This actually might encourage some landlords to build more affordable housing because they tell me there is little incentive these days to create new stock when they keep getting hammered from all sides. Energy bills keep going up. People have to put food on the table. It becomes a question of priorities within the family. As we’ve heard in this House before, the sale of Hydro One will lead to higher energy rates as private owners expect to earn a profit on their investment.

Some people will continue to skip out on their bills, leaving bills owing, and the landlords will continue to be hit with bills that they didn’t expect.

Let me turn at this point, Speaker, to conversations I’ve had recently with municipal politicians of all political stripes. Smart growth for their communities comes in varying ways. For example, in Leamington and Kingsville, those communities could grow if this minister and his friend the Minister of Energy, and their friend the Minister of Economic Development and Infrastructure, would find a way to fast-track more hydro lines coming in to supply commercial and industrial users, especially in the greenhouse sector.

Major players are leaving Ontario and opening new businesses in Ohio and elsewhere because there’s not enough available hydro for their planned growth in Leamington and Kingsville.

We’ll leave the discussion about the cost of hydro for another day, but the supply of hydro has been promised for years by this government. Former Energy Minister Dwight Duncan made a commitment, and the people in Essex county are still waiting. They would also benefit from the promised completion of the Bruce Crozier highway, the widening of Highway 3 in the Essex-Kingsville-Leamington area, so that agriculture produce can move efficiently, and commuter and tourist traffic is not imperilled.

I hope all current ministers—indeed, all current Liberal members—live long and prosper, and if by chance they’re fortunate enough at some point to have a stretch of highway named in their honour, I hope the government of the day keeps its word and completes whatever highway improvement it is. Because it is a slight to the memory of a great guy, Bruce Crozier, a long-time member of this House: a member of the House for 18 years; eight years as a Deputy Speaker, perhaps the longest term ever served by a member of this House as Deputy Speaker.

Prior to that, he was a town councillor in Leamington for three years, mayor for five or six years; elected to this House in a by-election when Remo Mancini, the former Liberal member for Essex, retired from provincial politics.

Bruce Crozier was a true gentleman known for his colourful collection of bow ties that he always wore. I recall my leader, the member for Hamilton Centre, Ms. Horwath, saying that Bruce was a “voice of dignity and civility,” which, as you know, Speaker, is something some of us would like to see more of these days. He was revered. He was a man of honour who fought for his community and stopped rural schools from closing in his riding. He won the respect of supporters from all parties by the way he conducted himself in and out of this House.

It is a slight to his memory that transportation priorities have shifted despite the evidence of the need in Essex county, and there are no immediate plans to improve a highway that is fast becoming notorious for the number of serious and fatal accidents.

I wish to personally thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr. McMeekin, for his support of the private member’s bill introduced recently by my friend from Essex calling for this badly needed highway to be put back on the government’s priority list. We won’t forget your support, Minister, and neither will the people in Essex county forget the indifference shown by the rest of your party towards the memory of Bruce Crozier.

Speaker, I could go on for another half-hour. I’m just looking at this point to whether you want me to continue, or do you want to take a break for the morning?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member. We will continue debate at a later point in time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for seniors, on a point of order.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to wear the Italian Heritage Month pin today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for seniors is seeking unanimous consent to wear pins to recognize Italian Heritage Month. Do we agree? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine. I won’t introduce the other one; I’ll leave that to you. Suzanne van Bommel is here. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member gets high marks.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We’re joined today by some young people from the town of Oakville. Please welcome Alex Wellstead, Sam Galea, Eric Mariglia, Justin Ortiz, Jovan Sahi, Sarah Figueroa and Caitlin Mehrotra, who are all members of the Oakville Provincial Youth Advisory Committee.

Mr. Robert Bailey: On behalf of MPP Tim Hudak, Niagara West–Glanbrook, I’d like to introduce our page captain today, Duncan Cruickshank, and, in the west members’ gallery, his father, John Cruickshank, and mother, Julie Cruickshank, accompanied by his sisters, Meredith and Jillian Cruickshank. They’re in the members’ gallery this morning.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Craft Cider Association here with us today—and a reminder that there will be a wonderful reception from 5:30 to 7 in rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome students from the Arthur Christian School, who are visiting the Legislature today.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of page Megan Sweetman—my page; she’s from Mississauga–Streetsville—I’m here to welcome her grandmother Sandra Norris. She will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome back.

M me Gila Martow: On a plus de 100 étudiants ici de la région d’Hamilton avec leurs parents et peut-être leurs enseignants, avec mon ami Stewart Kiff. Bienvenue.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: On behalf of MPP Han Dong, Trinity–Spadina, I wish to welcome page captain Julien Jouan and his mother, Danielle Vadius. She will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming, from the beautiful town of Caledon, Mayor Allan Thompson, in the Speaker’s gallery, as well as Tom Wilson from Spirit Tree Cidery, and some other guy who looks vaguely familiar.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is with great pleasure that I would like to welcome in the Legislature, in the east gallery, our page captain’s family: his father, Stephen Heckbert; his aunt Mary; and his uncle Mike Heckbert. I would like a round of applause to say welcome to the Legislature, and thank you for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome, and thank you.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured today to introduce to the House, and welcome to the Legislature, Sandra Norris from Grand Bend. She’s the proud grandmother of page Megan.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure this morning to introduce, from the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex but originally from Hepworth: Marguerite Davis. Marguerite, welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome Shena Terry, who is from Milford Bay in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka. She is the mother of page Jessica Terry and is here in the east public gallery this morning. Please welcome her.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to welcome 100 students—I don’t think they’re all in the House yet today—from École secondaire Académie catholique Mère-Teresa; as well as Nancy Baverstock, who is the chair of #ActionACMT; Joanne Bouchard, member of #ActionACMT; Mark Power, partner of Power Law; Didier Letarte-Bérubé, who is the student representative; Melinda Chartrand, the president; and Benoit Mercier, president of the francophone Ontario school trustee association. I welcome them all to Queen’s Park today. Speaker, they’re here to ask the minister to please fund their Catholic school.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome people who have travelled a long way to get here, all the way from Attawapiskat, Ontario: the students at Kattawapiskak school, which is a school we rebuilt, which took 15 years, after a fuel spill up in that community. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

With us today in the Speaker’s gallery are members from the Ontario Craft Cider Association, who will be showcasing their cider this evening at the craft cider reception in 228-230 from 5:30 to 7:30.

Also with us is the mayor of Caledon, Allan Thompson, who has been introduced.

Also with us is Steve Peters, the principal adviser for the GPS Group, and also the former member for Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments, and Speaker of the House in the 39th Parliament—Steve Peters.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Speaker, they asked where Joe was. Thank you.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Today the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released a letter outlining needed changes to your payroll pension tax. Over 150 businesses, including 57 local chambers of commerce and some of the province’s largest employers, have signed that letter. They know your payroll tax will kill jobs in Ontario. These employers outlined many of the same concerns that we raised back in April as part of our five budget asks.

Premier, anyone reading the chamber’s letter would come to the same conclusion we came to long ago, that your pension plan is the wrong way to go. So I ask you, will you do the right thing and withdraw your damaging pension plan payroll tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it’s interesting, because I read that article, and I understand that there are questions being asked. But I also know that a fundamental part of the development of this plan is conversation with businesses and individuals around the province. Our Associate Minister of Finance has been doing that work, because that’s how good policy gets written.

Good policy is written by listening to the people who are on the front lines, listening to the businesses who understand what the impacts will be. But at the end of the day, it is extremely important that people in Ontario—and, I would argue, across this country—have security in their retirement, that they do not work their lifetime and then retire into poverty. Our Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is about providing that security for people when they are finished their work life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Speaker, again to the Premier: Currently, the Ontario registered pension plan won’t exempt employers who offer a defined contribution plan or group RRSPs, even though both plans provide a far higher rate of return. Instead, you’re going to punish business owners who already look after their employees’ retirements by forcing them to pay yet another burdensome tax. Employers can’t afford to pay both. We all know they’ll cancel the only one they’re allowed to cancel: the higher-paying plan they already offer.

So again, Premier, before it’s too late, will you walk away from the ORPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Associate Minister of Finance is going to want to comment in the supplementary. But the fact is that the vast majority of Ontarians—77% of Ontarians—support an increase in pension benefits. They know what they are being presented with in their retirement and as they look forward to the retirement of their children and their grandchildren, which is why organizations like CARP are supportive of, first of all, an enhancement of the Canada Pension Plan, which the federal government has decided not to do. But secondly, if that’s not possible, they’re supportive of the Ontario government stepping up and taking that action.

Those people are living in every riding in this province. Across this province, people are not able to save enough for their retirement. They know that. They’re concerned about their own retirement and they’re concerned about the retirement of their children and their grandchildren.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: This isn’t just a message from the opposition bench. These are some of Ontario’s largest employers who have signed this letter: General Motors, Ford, Canadian Tire, Walmart, Magna. The list goes on. There are associations ranging from mining to hospitality, from manufacturers to farmers. There is across-the-board opposition to the Liberal payroll tax. Between skyrocketing energy rates, a looming carbon tax and your payroll tax, the cost of doing business in Ontario is far too high and is costing jobs. Employers in Ontario are telling the government enough is enough.

Premier, why won’t you listen and withdraw the ORPP bill?

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the members opposite for the question.

In fact, we are very much engaged with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and its members. We’ve met with dozens of companies and the associations representing those companies because we know that pensions are very important. We know that retirement security is a very important issue in this province. As the Premier has said, 77% of Ontarians believe that enhancements to retirement benefits are needed. We’re taking leadership on this issue.

Through the consultations that we’ve done across this province, we have heard differing views on what is deemed to be comparable. Some folks would prefer universality while others would prefer a narrower definition. What’s important is that we’re analyzing this feedback and we’re going to be making decisions for the people of this province.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: The auto industry has been the backbone of Ontario’s economy for decades. When you took power, Premier, almost one in five Ontarians was employed by the automotive and parts manufacturing industry. As your government’s energy policies and many other policies have driven jobs out of the economy, it’s now only one in eight. Ontario needs to remain competitive in the auto industry. The industry won’t be able to survive if your mandatory pension plan makes our economy even less competitive—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, will you, at the very least, expand the comparable pension definition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Beaches–East York, second time.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —to help protect the auto industry, as they and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have asked in their letter today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure is going to want to speak specifically to the auto sector. But I would just again repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that it is extremely important that the people of this province—no matter where they work, no matter what sector they work in—have the prospect in their retirement of a secure retirement.

We know that there are many people, many young people, who are not able to save enough. That is why we have made the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan a fundamental pillar of our economic plan, because that kind of security is important for individuals and families. It’s also important for society, because if those very businesses, in a number of years, are confronting a society where there is a generation of people who don’t have the wherewithal, everyone will have to pay, everyone will have to deal with that reality. We are thinking ahead and we are putting in place the supports that we know people will need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me, I should have said the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, not the member from Beaches–East York.

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is also for the Premier. In a letter addressed to the Premier, which was made public today, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and a large coalition of companies, including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, are urging the Premier to allow defined contribution plans to be considered as comparable plans and allow them to be exempted from the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. Defined contribution plans are more affordable for employers but still offer some measure of retirement security for employees.

Mr. Speaker, the auto industry needs to have the option to switch to defined contribution pension plans for their workers in the future so they can remain competitive and continue to assemble vehicles in Ontario over the long term.

Will the Premier commit to making defined contribution plans comparable?

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

We’ve actually met with many members of the auto sector to talk about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and the plans that they currently have.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there are very generous defined contribution plans that exist. At the same time, we have to balance the fact that people need a predictable stream of income into retirement that they can rely on. With the feedback that we have received, we are in the process of looking at who is going to be affected by the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and who are the members that will be required to be part of this plan.

We want to ensure, at the end of the day, that we strengthen retirement security for people in this province so that when they retire they will have that income that they will rely on in their senior years. That is the focus of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Again, back to the Premier: The fact remains that sky-high electricity prices, high taxes and excessive red tape have already cost us hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and thousands of jobs in the auto sector. Many are going south of the border, and we’re losing out on new job-creating investment.

The ORPP means higher payroll costs for business and less take-home pay for workers, and it will only exacerbate the trend of lost manufacturing jobs.

The Premier should know that GM’s commitment to Oshawa expires next year, yet the government is consciously and deliberately making it harder for GM to stay.

Will the Premier recognize the folly of her policy and take this simple step which will give hope to auto workers that their future employment will remain secure?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, we are the only government that is committed to enhancing retirement security for Ontarians. We know that Ontarians are not saving enough and that we need to take action now to ensure that people are prepared for their retirement.

Economists agree—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Economists agree that we need to take action. Just today, CIBC’s deputy chief economist, Benjamin Tal, stated: “Add it all up, and there are some 5.8 million working-age Canadians who will see more than a 20% drop in their living standards upon retirement.”

He went on to say, “That’s why the time to act is now.”

Mr. Speaker, that’s why we are acting, with the implementation of the ORPP.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said, “What we have to do as government is ... take a position, which we did in our platform and in our budget. We have to explain that position, and then we have to move forward.”

The problem is, the Premier has two positions. Not only did she not run on the sell-off of Hydro One, but in October, months after the election, she said, “We’re not selling off the assets.” And her finance minister said, “We are not going to sell off our assets.”

Now she’s claiming that selling off Hydro One was the plan all along.

If the Premier can’t decide, how about she lets Ontarians decide through a referendum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve been very clear on our plan to maximize assets. Let me just go through this again. We talked about it before, during and after the 2014 election.

In an April 11 news release, Hydro One was in the headline—“The Ontario government has appointed a council to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and optimize the full value of Hydro One....”

It was featured in our election platform. It’s mentioned three times in our 2014 budget—“will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as” OPG, Hydro One and the LCBO.

Page 164 of our budget: “Valuable assets include large and complex government business enterprises ... such as the LCBO, Hydro One and OPG ... the government will launch an in-depth review process.”

We were very clear that in order to pay for transit and transportation infrastructure, we needed to leverage those assets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is trying to go back in time and say it was her plan all along to sell Hydro One and that she was clear about that with Ontarians. But in April of this year, a constituent wrote to his local Liberal MPP because he’d heard, for the first time, that the Liberals were selling Hydro One. He was told by that Liberal MPP’s office that “reports regarding ... Hydro One are premature” and that “no final decisions have been made” about Hydro One. Now, those backbench MPPs are going to have to explain to their constituents that the sell-off was the plan all along—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Those backbenchers are going to have to explain to their constituents that this was the plan all along. Speaker, Ontarians deserve—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will immediately start warning individuals who are starting to shout people down.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve honesty, Speaker, and the Premier needs to listen to them. Will she hold a referendum on the sell-off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, we were very clear that we were going to review the assets that were owned by the people of Ontario in order to unlock their value to invest in infrastructure that’s needed.

You have to remember that this line of questioning that the leader of the third party is on is a direct attack on the investment in infrastructure that is needed in this province. The leader of the third party has no plan. She has no solution for how to invest in infrastructure. The fact is, she ran on exactly the same fiscal plan that we had, apart from the fact that she said she would take $600 million more out of the budget than we had put forward. But she has no plan for how she would invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit that are needed across this province in order for us to be competitive.

The fact is that the explanation that needs to come from the leader of the third party is how would she make those investments? Or would she just cancel the projects that are already under way and planned?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier said to me yesterday that she was “explicit in our budget and in our platform and then in our budget again” about her plan to sell Hydro One, but the fact is her own finance minister didn’t know, Liberal MPPs didn’t know and, as of April, her MPPs were telling constituents that it was “premature.” Just in April, it was “premature” to be talking about the sell-off of Hydro One.

A referendum would be explicit, Speaker: Yes or no. Maybe that would help the Liberal backbenchers figure out where they stand on this issue.

Will this Premier agree to a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would suggest we all just worry about our own team. How about that? We’ll all just worry about our own team. I’ve got my team.

What my team understands is that there was a process. We said we were going to look at our assets and we were going to make decisions—some of them very difficult, but some of them necessary in order to make—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —decisions that were necessary in order to make good on the fundamental commitment that we made to invest in infrastructure in this province.

It’s true. At some point along the way, final decisions had not been made. But the decision has been made now, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make those investments—not something that the leader of the third party supports.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I worry about Ontarians. That’s who I worry about.

My next question is to the Premier. The Premier says that she ran on selling Hydro One, but for months before and after the election, she denied that. Now she’s denying her denial. I don’t blame Ontarians for wondering what is going on with this Premier.

What’s been very clear and consistent this entire time is that the people of this province cannot afford this wrong-headed scheme to sell off Hydro One.

Will the Premier settle this nonsense once and for all, put an end to the double speak and agree to a Hydro One referendum so the people can have their say?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we cannot afford to do in this province is not invest in the infrastructure that we need. All the questions about jobs and the questions about the economy and the questions about business in this province, whether it’s auto sector or whether it’s aerospace or whether it’s high tech, all of those industries are looking to government to make the infrastructure investments that they need. That’s part of creating the conditions so that businesses can thrive, so that more business will come here.

The fact is we are the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment again this year. We’re not going to stay there if we don’t make the investments in infrastructure that are needed. What we are committed to doing is making those investments. The third party doesn’t support that. I get that, but the fact is we have made a commitment to invest in that infrastructure and we’re going to do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians were kept in the dark about the Premier’s plan to sell Hydro One. Liberal cabinet ministers were left in the dark about the Premier’s plan to sell Hydro One. Liberal MPPs were kept in the dark; they kept their constituents in the dark about this plan. The Premier kept everyone in the dark. Now she’s tying herself in knots to claim that this was her plan all along.

Will the Premier put all of this to rest and simply give Ontarians the say that they deserve on this issue and hold a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I would just say to the leader of the third party, it was very clear in our budget, in our platform and in our budget again that we were looking at assets, and that we were looking at the sale of assets. We talked about the crown corporations. We talked about the review that was happening. We talked about the GM shares. We talked about real estate.

It was so clear that the leader of the third party said this on July 9, 2014: “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.’”

It was so clear that we were looking at how we would leverage those assets that even the leader of the third party understood.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was just pointing out how sneaky the Premier was being in that quote.

Ontarians are sending a very clear message: Stop the sell-off of Hydro One.

First, the Liberals said selling Hydro One was a terrible idea. Then the Premier said she’s thinking about selling Hydro One or, to be more specific, she is thinking of recycling legacy assets. She said she’s not selling Hydro One. Then she said she’s selling Hydro One. Then she said she never said she wasn’t selling Hydro One. The Premier has more versions of this story than Pat Sorbara has job offers for Andrew Olivier.

Will this Premier stop this nonsense once and for all and agree to do the right thing by the people of this province and hold a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, we made a decision that it was critical that we invest in the infrastructure that’s needed in this province, across the province—roads, bridges and transit. In order to do that, there needed to be funding. There needed to be revenue in order to do that. We needed money in order to make that investment.

We reviewed our assets and there was a process. I will say to the leader of the third party and to Ontarians: This has not been an easy decision. This is not an easy decision on the part of the members of this party, of this government, but we know that if we don’t make those investments in infrastructure that will be irresponsible. It would be irresponsible for us to not invest in the infrastructure that is needed for future generations, whether it’s the businesses of this province or whether it’s the individuals who are having trouble getting around because of gridlock. Those investments must be made. We made a commitment and that’s what we’re going to do.

Bear control

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Minister, yesterday police were forced to shoot a bear because the MNR was unable to respond in time. Even though the bear had been sighted on the weekend and staff received a call at 6:30 Monday morning, the MNR was not prepared. Why was the MNR unprepared and unresponsive?

Hon. Bill Mauro: In fact, the member should know, if he was following this incident in the newspapers, that the MNRF was prepared. Right through the entire weekend they provided the technical assistance—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: Right through the incident over the course of the weekend the MNRF provided the technical assistance that exists in the protocol between police forces across the province of Ontario and the MNRF. They did that.

When the call came in for assistance—I believe it was Monday morning around 6:30—the MNRF began to mobilize their forces as required and did their best to respond to the scene. That’s the way it transpired; that’s the way it went down.

Unfortunately, I will say, we know that the incident ended in a way that no one wanted to see. The animal had to be put down. That’s an unfortunate result. Having said that, in direct response to the member’s questions, the MNRF was there and doing what they were expected to do under the protocol.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Minister: There’s no reason at all that the ministry couldn’t mobilize on a Saturday or a Sunday when they first heard about the bear and be ready to roll.

Minister, last year your colleague the former Minister of Natural Resources, David Orazietti, was quoted as saying: “When you look at incidents in schoolyards when children can’t go out for recess, teachers wearing bear whistles, city police officers having to shoot black bears in the middle of communities in northern Ontario, it’s not acceptable.” Do you not agree with your colleague? However, you said yesterday that nuisance bears were not the responsibility of the MNR.

Minister, you’re minimizing public safety. Have you downloaded your responsibility to the municipalities?

Hon. Bill Mauro: When a sighting is reported to the MNRF, if the MNRF, according to your question, was expected to respond in some way, shape or form—I don’t know what it is you expect they would do—the MNRF would be all over the province all of the time, 24/7, when there’s a sighting. That’s not what they do. It’s not what they did five or 10 years ago and it’s not what they’re expected to do today. It is unacceptable that you would expect that that would be a requirement of the MNRF.

When they got the call that the animal had been localized, they responded as per the protocol that exists between local police forces and the MNRF. It’s unfortunate that the animal had to be put down.

I would say: This is not a question of resources, as was implied by the member yesterday in the media. That is not at all the case. In fact, MNRF spends far more money today on an annual basis than they did when that member’s party was in power.

Ontario Energy Board

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This is a question to the Premier. Last year, the Ontario Energy Board approved a request by Enbridge Gas for an incredible 40% increase in the price of natural gas, equal to a $400 increase per family, per year.

One of the two board members who approved that request was Marika Hare. We’ve learned that Ms. Hare worked for Enbridge for 15 years and served as its director of regulatory affairs. Now the Premier has promoted Ms. Hare to be vice-chair of the Ontario Energy Board.

Why is the government stacking the Ontario Energy Board with people who built careers fighting for the energy industry instead of people who fight for consumers and Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Ontario Energy Board has tremendous credibility as an independent agency. It does its job; it does it well. The reality is, they’re dealing with technical issues and they need technical people on the board who understand the sector, representing the people of Ontario after they’re appointed.

To suggest that somebody who has extensive—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, to suggest that somebody who has extensive experience in the sector is not qualified to sit on a board that deals with these issues is just wrong.

The Ontario Energy Board has provisions that deal with conflict of interest. They can declare their interest the same as any other board, whether it’s a crown corporation or a private sector company. They have rules about conflict of interest, but they also seek out—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Last week, I pointed out that the government was stacking the Ontario Energy Board with energy industry insiders, and I asked the Minister of Energy how such people could be trusted to put the interests of Ontario families ahead of the interests of the energy industry.

The minister said that conflict-of-interest guidelines would protect Ontario families at the OEB. We now know that these individual conflict-of-interest guidelines do not prevent OEB members from approving 40% rate increases on behalf of their former employers.

With the Ontario Energy Board now stacked with energy industry insiders, why should Ontarians trust that the board will stop massive electricity rate increases on behalf of a privatized Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member would know that after that increase he referred to was made, the Ontario Energy Board made rulings which significantly reduced them, balanced them out and spread them over time. When the announcement was made for those reductions, we never heard a peep from that particular member.

The gas rates today in Ontario are much better than they were five, six, seven or eight years ago, and that’s because of the Ontario Energy Board.

Aboriginal affairs / Affaires autochtones

M. John Fraser: Ma question est pour le ministre des Affaires autochtones.

Last Sunday, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began its closing events with a walk for reconciliation from Gatineau to Ottawa city hall. Over 11,000 people attended, and I had the honour of joining you, the Attorney General and the member from Ottawa–Orléans at the walk to show the commitment of this government to renewing its relationship with our aboriginal partners.

Mr. Speaker, it was really quite impressive to see people from different walks of life and different ages—a number of people were there—and their faces really left a lasting impression on me.

We know that the residential school system is one of the darkest times in Canadian history. Approximately 150,000 children and youth were taken from their homes and placed in schools, often by force.

The commission was established in June 2008 to ensure that the stories of survivors from the residential schools are not forgotten. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister please inform the House on the mandate of the commission?

Hon. David Zimmer: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was indeed a solemn moment. The commission is gathering stories from survivors and providing recommendations to governments so our history is not forgotten.

In 2012, the commission released an interim report which found residential schools constituted an assault on aboriginal children and families, and aboriginal communities and their cultures.

The commission also released a series of recommendations for the federal and provincial governments. Speaker, this government is following up on those recommendations.

As Ontario’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I have visited over 50 First Nations in the last two years. I have met with aboriginal leaders and members of the communities from all corners of the province. I have come to understand that as peoples we share a difficult history.

Today, the commission will release its final report. There is a moral imperative to deal with the commission’s recommendation. That’s why our Premier—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Of course, we were led on Sunday by the Premier, who was there as well.

Le mois de juin est le Mois national de l’histoire autochtone. Ce mois, nous honorons le rôle important des Premières Nations, des Inuits et des Métis au Canada, et nous reflétons sur l’histoire, les sacrifices, les contributions, la culture et la force de ces communautés.

With almost 300,000 First Nation, Métis and Inuit people, the province of Ontario has Canada’s largest aboriginal population. We know that understanding the history and culture of aboriginal people in Ontario leads to a better friendship between aboriginal people and Ontarians. For reconciliation to succeed, all Canadians need to understand the history we share with our aboriginal peoples.

This month, being National Aboriginal History Month, presents an opportunity for all Ontarians to become more aware of our true and shared history, aboriginal culture and the contributions aboriginal communities make.

Can the minister please update this House on his experience at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Hon. David Zimmer: We will continue to support our aboriginal partners’ efforts to restore the vitality of their culture, which is central to their communities. We will continue to do our part to educate and raise awareness among Canadians of our shared history and the painful place residential schools have in it.

One of the most important steps we can take is education and awareness of the non-aboriginal community. The Ministry of Education has partnered with First Nations and my ministry to develop resources that will assist educators in planning student learning about residential schools.

Ontario is also working in partnership with aboriginal people and communities to create awareness through our three-year treaty engagement and public awareness strategy. The reason we are doing that is because in Ontario, we are all treaty peoples. Whether we’re aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we are all treaty peoples.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Your Hydro One fire sale leaves seniors who call me about soaring electricity costs for Hydro One billing nowhere to turn for help. You’re putting Hydro beyond the reach of MPPs, the Ombudsman—everyone.

The minister responsible for seniors knows that’s wrong, because he once said, “There is nothing the public of Ontario ... will benefit from with the sale of Hydro One....

“That is why we should try to protect this wonderful facility which, if sold, will not come back into the hands of the people of Ontario anymore.”

Premier, did the minister even try to stand up for seniors before you asked him to abandon his principles, or did he just roll over like the rest of your cabinet?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member somehow thinks that the programs that we have to mitigate rates will not continue. We have significant programs to mitigate rates, including the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, which gives qualified seniors up to $1,041 back per year. We still have in place the program that gives a 10% reduction on all bills. We also have in place a low-income program which gives up to $600. We’re implementing another low-cost program that will give a family with an income of $28,000 and four children $525 back on their electricity bill. They will continue to go forward on our agenda.

It’s a false conclusion that he’s making that rates are going to go up, and in the supplementary I’ll talk about the Ontario Energy Board, which that party also supported.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Yesterday, our leader, Patrick Brown, launched a petition against giving away this invaluable public asset. It’s a good petition, Speaker, but you know what? I’ve found one I like better. Your Minister of Northern Development and Mines proudly read it into the record on May 15, 2002:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to encourage Ernie Eves to take Dalton McGuinty’s advice to put working families ahead of his Bay Street friends by immediately stopping the sale of Hydro One.”

Premier Eves did the right thing in 2002. He listened to Ontarians who signed that minister’s petition. Will you respect the thousands of Ontarians signing our petition today at stopthehydrofiresale.ca by pulling the plug on this bad deal?

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The party opposite has a strange memory. They issued a policy paper only about a year and a half or so ago where they were proposing to sell off to the private sector significant interests in Hydro One and OPG.

And what were they going to rely on to protect seniors? Their white paper stated specifically that they recognized—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —that consumer prices would continue to be protected and regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. That’s their paper.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing is warned. Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaking of their new leader—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Wrap up.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Okay; one sentence, Mr. Speaker. The quote from the leader of the PC Party: “I generally believe that the private sector could do a better job than the public sector. I generally think”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. After the warning comes the naming.

New question.

Class size

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question it to the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Education claimed that class size caps are not on the table. In reality, we know there are efforts to replace hard cap language with flexible guideline language. Either the minister has no idea what is being discussed at the table or she is experiencing cognitive dissonance.

The facts are clear: The removal of class size caps means less one-on-one time for our kids, less resources for kids with special needs and less time spent with kids with ESL needs. Is the Premier committed to throwing our schools further into chaos by removing class size caps? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s important to make clear that at the central table there are actually three parties. There’s the union representing the workers; there is the school board association representing the boards, the employers; and there is the government, the crown. And what I think you will find, if you check the record, is that I said that the government did not have class size caps on the table. I think what you would also find, if you checked the record of Mr. Barrett, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, is that, as they have said, they do have that. So what I said was 100% accurate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: If I understood that correctly, then the government side is not in support of lifting the class size caps, so we can look forward to those caps remaining next year.

Back to the Premier: Again, either the minister has no idea what is being discussed at the table or she is prepared to allow our kids to fall behind. Class size caps matter. Flexible guideline language has no real meaning and is not enforceable. Our kids deserve better than being forced into overcrowded classrooms so the government can save a buck. Families and students deserve more than a $250-million in-year cut to education on top of more than a decade of underfunding. Kids need one-on-one time, and they should not pay the price for short-sighted Liberal cuts.

Will the Premier commit to holding the line on class size caps and guarantee families and students that there will be no change to class size caps in the fall?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I don’t think that there’s much point in saying, “He said, she said,” but I think there is a lot of point in understanding the way the funding model works.

Mr. Paul Miller: You should have changed that funding model.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: We paid $22.5 billion last year, and $22.5 billion in funding is being flowed. The class size ratio within that funding model for secondary schools is 22 to 1. That has been the class size funding model as long as I have been involved as an MPP. In fact, with the exception of bigger classes during the NDP social contract, I think it has also been the class size generator as long as I was a trustee. Twenty-two to one is the long-standing class size generator for the funding model for secondary schools in the province of Ontario, and we have not requested any change to that.

Manufacturing sector

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

As Ontarians are well aware, our manufacturing sector was hit hard by the global recession. Fortunately, to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, “We’ve seen a rebirth in manufacturing.” However, it’s important that we continue to support—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d appreciate if the member would not make comments while he’s exiting.

Carry on.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I know that in our latest budget, our government has extended the accelerated deduction for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery. This important step will continue to encourage the growth of the sector. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, could he please inform this House on the future outlook of Ontario’s manufacturing sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to say that I have some good news to report on Ontario’s manufacturing sector. In the latest report from Stats Canada, Ontario’s manufacturing sector gained 1,200 net new jobs. In the month before—in March—we gained another 800 new jobs. According to RBC’s Canadian manufacturing index, confidence in Ontario’s manufacturing sector continues to rise, from 54 to 55.5 in the last month. That’s really good news, and that’s despite all the efforts the opposition is making to talk down our gains in manufacturing.

Our province’s confidence index is now well beyond the national average of 49.8. RBC is predicting that our province’s manufacturing sector will continue to lead the country. This is good news for our sector and it’s good news for our province. We’ll continue to work with our manufacturing sector to keep it growing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. It’s good to hear that the steps our government has taken are having a positive impact on the sector and that the outlook for Ontario manufacturing is quite positive. Not only will the growing manufacturing sector create many direct jobs, it will create many indirect jobs as well.

While this is positive news for constituents in my riding, we know that there are still people in Ontario looking for work. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, could he please inform this House what further action our government has taken to encourage job growth in Ontario’s manufacturing sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The recent budget that we brought in continues to support programs that continue to strengthen our economy and, in particular, our manufacturing sector. For instance, we’re increasing the Jobs and Prosperity Fund by $200 million, to $2.7 billion. This will help Ontario to continue to secure large investments in our manufacturing sector—investments like Honda’s expansion in Alliston, for example.

We’re supporting the Southwestern and Eastern Ontario Development Funds. These funds have invested $120 million, leveraging $1.3 billion in private sector investment, creating or supporting 31,000 jobs—well over 90% of which are in the manufacturing sector.

We’re extending the accelerated deduction for investments in manufacturing and processing; that will ensure another $575 million in our manufacturing sector. We’ll continue to work with this sector.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education. In 98 days, two million students in Ontario should be starting their new school year. Sadly, the two-tiered, disastrous bargaining system is halting almost all negotiations, including the class size debate, and we know you’re promoting the guideline option.

Your dithering over the past eight months is now causing a real chance of turmoil in the next school year. Now all teacher federations in Ontario are on the brink of either all-out strikes or a major disruption, starting this fall.

Minister, are you prepared to assure Ontario parents that these disruptions and strikes will not occur come September 8?

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I can absolutely assure people of is that we will continue to bargain. There are three months left before the next school year. I continue to believe that the only way that we will solve the various problems is by negotiating a collective agreement. In fact, central negotiations do continue with various teachers’ unions.

Welcome to Melinda Chartrand, the president of the French Catholic trustees, who’s in the gallery this morning.

We continue to negotiate in partnership with the various school board associations and with various teacher federations. That will continue. I strongly believe that we will be able to reach agreements before the end of the summer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, I’m not sure if you actually understand how serious the situation is. With the non-bargaining that is taking place, we have no agreements with any of the 72 boards. With the non-bargaining, you have just a little over 13 weeks to resolve all of the classroom teacher education issues that you expected Bill 122 to resolve.

We are likely going to hobble to the end of this school year, but parents of two million students across Ontario will be on pins and needles worrying about the beginning of the school year in September. Minister, by the beginning of August, if you have not made serious progress—and judging by the inaction over the past nine months, I expect you won’t—are you prepared to bring the House back to take action in August?

Hon. Liz Sandals: That was fascinating, because what I think I just heard was a request for us to impose by legislation a collective agreement, and I absolutely reject that. We believe in negotiated collective agreements. We are—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I have said repeatedly, we believe that the way to arrive at good collective agreements is to negotiate them. That’s exactly what I will be doing over the next three months.

TVO documentary

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s office stopped independent journalists from showing footage that the Premier’s office agreed to shoot. We hear this is because that footage might have shed some light into the Sudbury bribery scandal. Now someone in the Premier’s office—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Someone in the Premier’s office is keeping that footage secret. Maybe it’s the Premier; maybe it’s Pat Sorbara. Who in the Premier’s office is keeping the documentary from seeing the light of day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said in this House, we worked closely with the producer to determine the parameters of the film. I haven’t seen any of the footage.

I still hope that the documentary can be played, because in the first instance it was about putting in place a documentary that would replace or augment a much earlier documentary that was made during the Davis era about how government works. That was the point of the documentary. That’s why I agreed to it. I haven’t seen any of the footage. I hope that it can go forward as an educational tool.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier did indeed welcome cameras into the back rooms, but then something was caught on film and the Premier’s office went into lockdown. We’ve heard that maybe this has something to do with the Sudbury bribery scandal. We want to know, but, more importantly, the people of Ontario want to know: What was caught on tape that spooked the Premier’s office so much that they’re keeping—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: What was caught on tape that spooked the Premier’s office so much that they’re keeping this footage secret from the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite makes my life and our lives sound very intriguing. But what happened was, we worked closely with the producer to established the parameters of the film, which was, as I said, to be a behind-the-scenes look at the preparation of the budget. Over the course of the filming, we had some concerns that the project was deviating from those original parameters. We shared those concerns with the producer. Our sole contact was the producer on the project; it wasn’t TVO.

There was always a clear understanding that we would have no editorial control but that we would be allowed to review portions of the film with government lawyers for issues like breaches of cabinet confidentiality or privacy legislation. That review was supposed to happen.

As I said, we were ready to sign off on the final product. I hope that it can be seen, but I have not seen any of the footage.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Just last week, the Ontario Mining Association hosted their seventh annual So You Think You Know Mining high school video awards. I’m pleased to say that several high schools from my great riding of Sudbury took home some of the awards.

I know that our Premier, along with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and colleagues from all sides of this House, were present at this great event.

This is an event that gives students an opportunity to learn about Ontario’s expertise in geology, engineering and our mining exploration and production industries.

When it comes to mining, Ontario has the advantages of a strong economy, competitive business costs and a world-class research and development environment.

Can the minister inform the House on the status of the mining industry in Ontario and its significance to our provincial economy?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the memb