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

November 29, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Nov-29 (PDF)

L128 - Wed 29 Nov 2017 / Mer 29 nov 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 November 2017 Mercredi 29 novembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Introduction of Visitors

Highway deaths

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Health care

Government’s record

Mercury poisoning

Lung disease

Child care

Consumer protection

Affordable housing

Victims of crime

Ambulance services

Post-secondary education / Éducation postsecondaire

Highway improvement

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Simcoe Christmas Panorama River of Lights

Service dogs

Minimum wage

New Hamburg Tree of Light

Demandeurs d’asile LGBTQ / LGBTQ refugees

Seasonal events in Nipissing

Environmental protection

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Research and innovation

Holodomor

Research and innovation

Holodomor

Holodomor

Research and innovation

Petitions

Highway improvement

Long-term care

Doctor shortage

Gasoline prices

Government advertising

Long-term care

School bus safety

Hospital funding

School closures

Energy policies

Lyme disease

Injured workers

Opposition Day

Privatization of public assets / Privatisation des biens publics

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 23, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 139,

An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts / Projet de loi 139, Loi édictant la Loi de 2017 sur le Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local et la Loi de 2017 sur le Centre d’assistance pour les appels en matière d’aménagement local et modifiant la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire, la

Loi sur les offices de protection de la nature et diverses autres lois.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 139. We believe in the importance of reforming the OMB to make it work better. As I said at second reading, the question is not whether to reform the OMB, but how. We need to ensure that individuals and community groups have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods, we need to ensure that our communities are being well planned, and we need to ensure that well-planned housing, including rental, is getting through the planning process in an efficient and timely manner.

Balancing those needs isn’t easy; sometimes there’s conflict. In fact, we heard this during committee hearings, as different groups came in to ask for exactly the opposite things. We heard from a group that talked about the importance of keeping de novo hearings, followed immediately by a group that talked about the importance of removing those hearings. We had people speak about the importance of having oral hearings and cross-examinations, while other groups applauded the government for eliminating cross-examination and restricting oral hearings.

Mr. Speaker, many groups and individuals have said the OMB needs to be reformed, and, as you know, I agree with them. However, while eliminating the OMB and creating a new appeals body might appear to solve the problem, many of the concerns with the OMB are re-created under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Mimico Lakeshore Community Network said that while they like many parts of the bill, “Some of the worst features of the existing OMB, including the non-transparency of the mediation process and the obstacles to participation by ordinary members of the community, would reappear in the new system.”

Just like there are often disagreements within the planning process, as we learned through committee hearings, there is no one answer or change that people agree on. That’s why it’s so disappointing that the government shut down public hearings and refused to hear from so many groups that will be impacted by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, there were four days of public hearings scheduled and advertised: October 16, 17, 23 and 24. There was less than a week to apply and there were still 69 people and organizations who put their names forward requesting to speak to this bill. Despite this, on Monday, October 16, the first day of the hearings, the government put forward a motion to cancel two days of public hearings.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Continue.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Despite this, on October 16, the first day of the hearings, the government put forward a motion to cancel two days of the public hearings. That meant that over 50 individuals and groups didn’t get a chance to speak to the committee and bring forward their concerns.

Before the vote, I listed all the organizations and people who had put forward requests, and even though the hearings had been publicly advertised for a week, every Liberal member of the committee still voted to cancel half of the public hearings. Mr. Speaker, there was so much interest in this bill that, during the public hearings, there was an overflow room set up.

As Toronto councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam said: “I wish to register my disappointment that the standing committee decided to cancel public hearings on Bill 139 that were scheduled for Monday, October 23, and Tuesday, October 24, and to shorten the time for written communications from the original deadline of October 24 to October 18.”

Going on, “The Planning Act and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) together have an incredible impact on land use planning in Ontario. The government should not be making changes to either without giving ample opportunity to listening to the concerns of elected officials and residents. We all want the same thing, which is effective reform.”

As a member of Save Glen Abbey, who wants to have a voice in the future of his community, said in an email, “As I understand, public input has been pushed aside for some reason.”

An agricultural organization said, “We ... are very disappointed about this decision.”

I heard from a Hamilton organization who said, “We are disappointed (and frustrated) to know that two days of hearings were cancelled, and it seems that virtually all representation in the first two days appears to be Toronto or GTA centric.”

A community organization sent an email that said, “I would like to thank you for updating us on the curtailment of committee hearings on the bill. We were hoping to participate in presentation of the FoNTRA brief, which reflects input from 34 representatives of residents’ associations throughout Toronto, spanning the Beach in the east to High Park in the west as well as from north Toronto.”

He went on to say, “We believe that OMB reform is essential and agree with many aspects of Bill 139. We hope that you and other members of the Legislature can improve it, and appreciate your work to this end.”

We received an email from an individual that said: “Our story is a poster child example of why change is needed to support the social policy initiative of public involvement and engagement in land use planning in Ontario. We would love to have told the story to the committee, but alas, we were not able to comply with the available dates.”

Mr. Speaker, I was happy that I was able to read some of their comments into the record and ensure their stories are heard.

A representative of a development organization who had requested to speak said, “This is bad news. Very frustrating. As I understand it, the committee will hear from deputants today, in addition to yesterday, while a variety of deputants who were waiting for a time next week will now not be allowed to appear. What justification did the members provide for the vote to cancel next week’s deputations?”

Mr. Speaker, not only did the government members reduce the number of days for public hearings, they also shortened the timeline for written submissions by a week, leaving many groups scrambling to make a submission after learning that they would be unable to present in person, now with less time to prepare a thoughtful submission.

I hope that the members across the aisle will take the time to explain why they cancelled these public hearings and refused to hear from all these concerned people, because so far they haven’t provided a reason. It wasn’t that we were in a rush to pass the bill, because on the fourth day of the clause-by-clause their chief government whip spoke extensively to the committee about his local concerns. It seems they just didn’t want to hear from the people who were disappointed and frustrated with the bill and the proposed changes.

As the Minister of Housing said in an update to his constituents, “It is unfortunate that the dates for committee hearings and written submissions on Bill 139 have been changed. The hearings for October 23 and 24 have been cancelled and the written submission deadline has been changed to October 18 at 5 p.m.” That’s the minister in a quote to his constituents. He went on to say, “These procedural changes are not uncommon at the Legislature.” But, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. We’ve got nine conversations going on. I can’t even hear the person speaking. If you want to have a loud conversation, please take it outside. What is wrong with whispering? Why do people have to yell from five seats away or talk loudly when they can go sit beside each other and talk quietly? I’ve never understood that.

Continue.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: He went on to say, “These procedural changes are not uncommon at the Legislature.” But, in my experience—and it has been somewhat of an extended period of time—cancelling public hearings that are already scheduled and advertised is very uncommon, unless there is a lack of demand. In this case, there was significant demand—over 50 people and organizations who wanted to speak—but the government just wasn’t prepared to listen.

I want to take a few minutes to share with this Legislature the list of organizations that didn’t get the opportunity to share their concerns with the committee. Since they didn’t get a chance to speak for themselves, I also want to share a few of their comments to ensure that they are heard.

One of the groups that didn’t get an opportunity to speak was Housing Matters, a community-driven organization with a mission to help increase the stock of housing, primarily through land-use rule reform, for the purpose of affordability. Another group was the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, who would have been able to talk about the impact of this legislation on the rental housing that we so desperately need. Another was the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association, who would have been able to offer valuable information on how the planning process in Ottawa differs from in Toronto.

The Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario asked to speak about their concerns. They represent 30,000 members across Ontario who depend on the construction industry for their livelihood. They also have some concerns about procedural fairness under this bill, which I will be sharing later in my speech since they didn’t get the opportunity to present to the committee.

Another organization that didn’t get to speak was the Bay Cloverhill Community Association, who joined together with three other groups to prepare their comments on this bill. Their area’s MPP has resigned and the government isn’t going to have a by-election, so presenting to committee would be their only opportunity to have their concerns heard. But the government still refused to hear from them. There are parts of the bill that they like, but they are concerned that the government is making the hearing process more complicated and that community participation is not well defined. Those are legitimate concerns, and I wish that they had had an opportunity to share them with the committee.

The North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance is another group with legitimate concerns that didn’t get the opportunity to speak. The North Gwillimbury Forest is one of the 10 largest forests in Lake Simcoe’s watershed, an expanse of 3,500 acres. They had significant concerns about the Conservation Authorities Act

schedule of the bill, but they didn’t get an opportunity to speak to the committee to share them in person. I want to commend the chair, Jack Gibbons, on his efforts to get these concerns heard, including attending committees and submitting 57 letters of support for his proposed amendments.

The additional hearing days that the government cancelled would have given us the opportunity to hear from some of the many groups that applied, such as the town of Aurora, the Architectural Conservancy Ontario’s Newmarket branch, Bloor Street East Neighbourhood Association, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, Cassels Brock lawyers, Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association, Hamilton-Halton Home Builders’ Association, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, McGill Granby Village Residents’ Association and the city of Burlington.

We also would have then had the opportunity to hear from Environmental Defence, the town of Ajax, the Downtown Toronto Residents Associations’ Alliance, ClubLink, Davies Howe LLP, the Garden District Residents Association, Devine Park LLP, the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations, the Greater Yorkville Residents’ Association, Kagan Shastri lawyers, Kingscross Ratepayers Association, Niagara Home Builders’ Association, Lakeshore Planning Council, Real Property Association of Canada, South Eglinton Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association, Sudbury and District Home Builders’ Association, McMillan LLP, Ontario Expropriation Association, Turkstra Mazza Associates, Teddington Park Residents Association and the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.

We would have had the opportunity to hear from individuals with concerns, such as Peter Smith, Chris Barnett, Roslyn Houser, Julie Di Lorenzo, Laurie Thompson, Donald Given and George Popper, an architect, urban designer and builder.

Bill 139 reforms the OMB, which is a significant change, but the bill also includes rewriting the Conservation Authorities Act. Each of these is significant in itself and should have been in separate bills so that they could have been fully debated and given the careful consideration that each act deserves, but once again, the government was more concerned about their political timelines than hearing from the people who would be impacted.

As a result, the organizations that were concerned about the Conservation Authorities Act changes and put forward requests to speak included the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society. They were all denied the opportunity to raise their concerns with that

section of this bill.

There were groups who had interest in both parts of the bill, who were conflicted because of supporting it for certain schedules and opposing it for others. As the Canadian Environmental Law Association said in their submission:

“CELA has two main submissions to make to you today. The first is that most of Bill 139, relating to planning matters, should not be passed in its present form. Rather we recommend that the government should withdraw these schedules to the bill and conduct further public consultation on how Ontario’s land use planning decisions and appeals should be reformed. However, on the other hand, we do support the proposed

schedule 4 relating to the Conservation Authorities Act with some recommendations as we will mention later in our submission.”

Another organization that requested to speak and didn’t get the opportunity was the London Home Builders’ Association. Since they weren’t able to present at committee, I’d like to share their email with the Legislature. In response to the cancellation, they said:

“Good afternoon. On behalf of the nearly 300 members of the London Home Builders’ Association, I would like to express our frustration and disappointment with the decision by the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy to cancel two days of public hearings on Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017.

“Our concern is not just based on the fact that our members’ voices were silenced from contributing to the public discussion and consultation on the proposed bill, but we are further concerned that virtually all representation at the standing committee hearings that were not cancelled appears to be Toronto or GTA centric. There was only one presentation from any organization, municipality or stakeholder from southwestern Ontario,” and that was the great town of Ingersoll in the riding of Oxford.

The London Home Builders’ Association “is aware that other homebuilders’ associations outside the GTA also requested delegation status, and while our issues are similar, we do face unique circumstances and we certainly have differing issues beyond what is typically heard from Toronto.

“The LHBA has serious concerns that Bill 139 is a regressive reform package that subverts, or in some cases completely eliminates important procedural rights and the administration of natural justice that existed under existing law and the current policy framework.

“We are further concerned that the proposed legislative changes will actually make the land use planning and appeal system more expensive, involving more lawyers, and will further politicize the planning process. We work diligently in our community towards protecting current housing affordability for our local residents and are concerned we have been denied an opportunity to advise you of our local experience.” That email is signed by the executive officer of the London Home Builders’ Association.

I want to share a portion of the written submission from the Swansea Area Ratepayers’ Association. They said, “In the absence of being able to make an oral presentation as requested in our application of October 10, 2017, we are sharing the concerns of the Swansea Area Ratepayers’ Association (SARA) and Swansea Area Ratepayers’ Group (SARG) by sending this written submission.”

They went on to say, “Based on media notices to date, it appeared that we had until 5 p.m. on the 24th of October, 2017 to provide written commentary. We have now been advised that we have to have our written comments in by 5 p.m. tomorrow, October 18, 2017. These comments are now being provided in light of this significant change in timing.”

Mr. Speaker, this is an organization that has had extensive experience with the planning appeals process. As they said, “We have in the last four years appeared numerous times before the Ontario Municipal Board, multiple times at pre-hearings, hearings and mediations both formal and informal, on such varied matters as DPS, the harmonized bylaw, OPAs, both in support and opposed to the position of the city. We have also been involved in matters where the applicant has appealed the inaction of the city.”

They pointed out a number of places where the bill would make it very difficult for community organizations such as theirs to have a voice in the planning process under Bill 139. We put forward amendments to address some of their concerns, and I will provide more information on those a little later.

The submission from the Swansea Area Ratepayers’ Association closed with, “We would have been willing to provide more specific commentary and suggestions but, given the surprise of this shortened notice period, this is the most we could do. Our communities and neighbours deserve better.”

Municipalities, environmental organizations, ratepayer groups, builders and housing advocates all deserve better. They deserve a chance to speak and share their concerns. They deserve the time to write submissions for the deadline they believe they had. They deserve an opportunity to suggest amendments that would make this bill better.

The only thing that all presenters agreed on was that the OMB should be reformed; that it could function better. We share that belief. We listened to the presenters and put forward amendments that would have strengthened the bill to ensure community groups had a say in the future of their communities and that well-planned developments could get through the system to help address our housing shortage.

I’m pleased that the government accepted a few of our amendments, but I think if they had been willing to listen to community groups, environmental organizations and housing industry experts, this bill could have been improved. It could have created a planning appeals tribunal that was truly in the best interest of community building and city planning, that balanced the needs of neighbourhoods and developers, and that was created using the advice of the groups who use it most.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs was asked about one of the amendments in the House and it was disturbing that he didn’t even seem to be aware of some of the strong amendments that we put forward. Clearly, the government needs to listen and communicate more.

The government not only cancelled two public hearing days, they also moved up a number of deadlines, including the one for amendments. It was clear that deadline was too short because all three parties submitted additional amendments after the deadline, including the government.

The deadline for written submissions was also too short. On October 16, the government moved up the deadline for written submission from October 24 to October 18. This meant that organizations just had two days to finish their submissions and get them to the committee. It also meant that many organizations didn’t see the change in timing and missed the deadline. That meant that input from important groups didn’t reach the committee until after we had considered the relevant

section of the bill.

While I’m disappointed that there were many organizations that did not get a chance for input, I’m pleased that both the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs did speak to the committee. They spent an hour with the committee answering questions and providing clarification about the bill, and I want to thank them and commend them for doing that.

I also want to thank the staff and lawyers of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources who provided assistance and clarification during the clause-by-clause. I appreciate that they were providing information to help us as a committee to try and make the bill better.

Mr. Speaker, we worked hard to try and improve this bill because we believe OMB reform is important and necessary. In fact, I think all three parties and every presenter to the committee agreed that OMB reform is needed. Again, the question is, how? There are a number of competing interests, and it is difficult to design a system that ensures everyone is heard without adding excessive delays and costs.

There are some places where the government got it right, and there are a number of places where they could have done better. We put forward a number of amendments that would have made the bill better. I’m happy that the government did accept a couple of our amendments, but I’m disappointed that they didn’t accept more. Some of these issues can be addressed by regulations, and I hope the government will do that. These issues are important, and we need to ensure that we have a system that works, that respects municipal decision-making, helps well-planned developments get built and provides communities with a voice in their future.

While we support the goal of the OMB reform, we are disappointed that the government missed so many opportunities to make the bill better. I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of those amendments and why we felt they would have improved the bill.

A number of community organizations, including the Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association, raised concerns that this bill will make it more difficult for community organizations to participate in the appeal process, including by requiring them to have the legal and professional planning advice necessary to properly frame a notice of appeal within a 20-day period. We need to ensure that the planning process is accessible to all and that community organizations are able to have a say in the future of their neighbourhood.

In their submission, Environmental Defence spoke about the need to improve the process rather than restrict public participation. They said, “If citizens want to participate in a hearing under the LPAT they will need to submit a request to the tribunal to appear as a party, and the tribunal can deny the request. Outside of urban areas most appeals are from third parties who are often raising environmental or health-related planning matters. In these cases, the existing OMB is seen as [a] last hope to have issues heard and addressed when they have been inadequately addressed in the municipal political arena.”

They continued by saying, “There is no doubt the changes proposed under Bill 139 will result in fewer hearings, but the reform also may restrict the public’s right to participate and this outcome may not serve the public interest.”

As the Canadian Environmental Law Association said, “In light of these provisions, Bill 139 will make it exceedingly difficult for CELA’s client community to play a meaningful role in the land use decision-making process, or to ensure that decision-makers are held accountable through appropriate appellate procedures.”

We put forward four different amendments to ensure that community groups would be able to participate fully in the new appeal system, and we were pleased that local organizations such as the Vanier Community Association supported the amendments.

The first was to ensure that parties to the appeal cannot be combined without their consent. If there are a number of parties who want to participate in an appeal, under Bill 139 the tribunal can simply choose one of the parties to represent the group and prevent the others from participating.

The Swansea Area Ratepayers Association was one of the groups that applied to speak to the committee but was unable to because the public hearing was cancelled, so I wanted to share their comments about ensuring that local neighbourhood groups have a say. In their written submission, the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association said, “When the matter goes to the Ontario Municipal Board,” or a tribunal, in the case of the city of Toronto, “ratepayers and community groups are usually advised by city legal that city legal represents the wishes of city council and not the community even when they are on the same side.

As a result it is not sufficient to state that the fact the city will be present at the board [means] that ratepayers and community groups will have their concerns represented.”

We put forward an amendment to ensure these groups would not be combined without their consent, but the government voted it down.

There are also concerns about the ability of these groups to participate in oral hearings. As you know, Bill 139 limits the oral hearings that will be held, but if they do occur, we want to ensure that community groups would be eligible to participate. Bill 139 says that if a decision is appealed, only the parties to the appeal can participate. That means that if the developer appeals a municipal decision, community organizations would no longer be eligible to participate.

We put forward an amendment which would have created an opportunity for other parties to participate as appropriate, but it too was voted down by the government. They are silencing community groups, not only by cancelling the committee hearings for the bill, but also in the planning process under the new tribunal.

Under the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the board had the discretion to waive fees as they deemed appropriate, but the new bill limits this to low-income individuals, meaning that non-profit organizations are no longer eligible to have their fees waived. We put forward an amendment to correct this oversight by adding that the tribunal can also waive fees for non-profit organizations. Many communities and environmental groups are often local organizations, funded by donations from members and concerned citizens. Anyone who has been involved with an OMB appeal knows that the cost can be significant, which makes it challenging for individual and community organizations.

As the Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association’s written submission said, “In GBNA’s view, Bill 139 does not address financial barriers to meaningful participation by resident associations and community members in LPAT appeals.”

We are pleased that the government has taken some steps to address the cost barriers and to provide assistance to help people have a say in their community, but we are disappointed that they still chose to vote against the amendment.

Under Bill 139, the tribunal can also simply decide that certain parties cannot participate in an appeal, even if they had been involved in the municipal decision and sent in a written submission. We put forward an amendment that would require the tribunal to provide reasons in writing if they decline to have a party participate in an appeal. This would provide accountability and ensure that every request to participate is fully considered. But as you might have guessed, that too was voted down.

When we talk about ensuring people have a say in the future of their community, I always think of the people and organizations in my riding who are working to fight a proposed landfill located near the Thames River and one of Ingersoll’s main drinking water wells. I know how much they want a say in the future of their community, and there are many other groups like them across Ontario. We put forward an amendment that would have ensured that garbage from other communities cannot be forced on unwilling host municipalities.

This is consistent with what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture said during an interview at ROMA a year and a half ago. This would not only allow residents in my riding of Oxford to protect their drinking water, it would give municipalities from across Ontario more say in the future of their communities. But the government voted it down. I was pleased that although they didn’t vote in favour of the amendment, they indicated support for it. I look forward to discussions on how we can achieve that.

Mr. Speaker, another concern for community groups is that, as currently written, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act takes precedence over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. As we all know, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act sets out the rules for fair hearings and procedures for all types of legal proceedings. It provides protection for individuals and organizations to ensure that legal proceedings are fair and follow the proper process.

As I mentioned earlier, the Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario has concerns about this section. Due to the cancelled public hearings, they didn’t get a chance to share those concerns, so I want to share part of a letter they wrote to the committee, which said: “The carpenters are also very concerned that many of the procedural reforms under Bill 139, including the overruling of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, are contrary to the right to procedural fairness and principles of natural justice in Canada and risk constitutional challenge.

In the event that these procedural reforms are challenged, any final decisions will be bogged down in a court system that is notoriously slow, thus risking potentially extreme delays to construction in Ontario.”

Concerns were also raised by the Advocates for Effective OMB Reform, which is a group of lawyers that have appeared at the OMB representing all parties, including municipalities, developers and community groups. They said:

“Bill 139 explicitly prevails over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the cornerstone legislation ensuring procedural fairness for administrative tribunals in the province of Ontario.

“The proposed procedure is not fair, just and will not lead to the expeditious resolution of the merits of an appeal.... The tribunal owes a duty of fairness to all persons involved in a proceeding. As the proposed regulations and rules have not been introduced, the act cannot be evaluated to determine its impact on procedural fairness.”

Their concerns were shared by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, who said, “We are concerned that the as-yet unwritten Local Planning Appeal Tribunal rules of practice and procedure prevail over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act where there is ‘conflict’ between the LPAT rules and the procedural safeguards entrenched in the SPPA.”

The development community has similar concerns. David Bronskill of BILD said, “Right now, the tribunal’s rules would have priority over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. This, to me, is an extraordinary and potentially unlawful remedy. A simple change to the legislation would ensure that the rules must comply with the SPPA, which codifies centuries of common law jurisprudence regarding fairness.”

A number of groups, including the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Advocates for Effective OMB Reform, the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, Environment North and the Building Industry and Land Development Association sent a joint letter to the Premier asking for reconsideration of the act.

In the letter they said, “Possibly the biggest unintended consequence is the fact that Bill 139 reduces or eliminates important procedural rights enjoyed by Ontarians under the existing framework. Simply stated, Bill 139 takes due process out of the system. Procedural fairness and natural justice—core tenets of our legal system for centuries—are effectively curtailed. Under Bill 139, all groups—whether developers, residents or other interested parties—will be very limited in their ability to engage in the process and to hold decision-makers to account.”

It’s hard for many people to understand the impact of allowing the legislation, regulation and even rules created by the tribunal to take precedence over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Let me give you an example: As I mentioned earlier, under this bill the tribunal has the power to decide that certain people or groups cannot be a party to an appeal. Let’s say a community group has opposed a development. The municipality turns the development down and the developer appeals that to the tribunal. Under this bill, the tribunal can simply decide that the group has no right to participate in the appeal. To ensure that they are properly considered and not simply dismissed, we put forward an amendment that would require the tribunal to provide written reasons if they don’t allow an individual organization to participate.

The parliamentary assistant announced that the government was voting against our amendment because there was already a requirement under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act for the tribunal to provide written reasons. We asked for clarification and the ministry’s own lawyers confirmed that since the tribunal’s rules take precedence over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, if they don’t want to provide written reasons they can simply create a rule that written reasons aren’t required and then they don’t have to provide them anymore.

That gives the tribunal the ability to simply change any part of the legislation and procedure process that they don’t like. That’s why we put forward an amendment to ensure that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act would take precedence. This would have protected the rights of individuals and organizations that are appearing before the tribunal but, again, the government just simply voted it down.

After our amendment was voted down, Advocates for Effective OMB Reform sent a letter to the Premier which said, “On multiple occasions, we have come forward to express our concern for the violation of natural justice proposed in this bill. We have made submissions, engaged in dialogue with your officials, made presentations and offered amendments to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and, most recently, issued a joint letter with a number of industry and environmental groups.

In each instance, we have highlighted significant issues with this legislation, in particular that it violates the very protections citizens are supposed to be afforded under the law. None of these entreaties have led to any changes in the bill or in your government’s approach.”

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are some positives in the bill. We agree with the government’s decision to provide additional support for people who are appealing a land use decision; however, we want to ensure that the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre serves all people of Ontario, not just the people launching an appeal in Toronto.

The issues that people are facing in other regions are different from those in Toronto. As Karen Peterson, Environment North, said, “Planning issues are quite different in this region.” She went on to say, “Northern townships are experiencing increased pressure to develop lands in populated areas, yet the local planning boards are not as equipped as the GTA municipalities that have extensive bureaucracies and sufficient funds to hire subject matter experts.”

We also heard about the differences in the north from the Sudbury home builders when they asked the committee to travel there for committee hearings. They said:

“Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, proposes substantive amendments to the scope, powers and function of the OMB. The proposed legislative changes will have considerable implications for economic development and growth in northern Ontario.

Our members are very concerned that the unique circumstances and needs of northern Ontario may be overlooked by the government and we respectfully request that the standing committee make the effort to travel to Sudbury, not just to hear from the Sudbury and District Home Builders’ Association, but also from other businesses, municipalities and members of the public—the views of northern Ontario must be heard on this important piece of legislation.”

To ensure that the appeal support centre understands the needs of different regions and provides assistance across the province, we put forward an amendment which would have required the members of the board to be from across Ontario, including at least one member from the north and one from rural Ontario. But the government again voted that down, meaning that the support centre could end up being very Toronto-centric, ignoring the voices and inputs of rural and northern Ontario.

We also put forward amendments to increase transparency at the local appeal support centre by adding requirements that they must table their annual report and annual audit in the Legislature. Currently, the bill only requires that the annual report and audit be provided to the minister, not made public or tabled in the Legislature. That means these documents could be sent to the ministry and stuck in a filing drawer without anyone really looking at them to see whether the support centre is helping the people it should and spending taxpayers’ money responsibly.

The government says that of course the minister will be looking at these documents closely, but based on history with this government, we know that isn’t the case.

Look at the Housing Services Corp., which is required by legislation to give their annual report to the minister each year, and yet they were able to get away with gross misuse of funds until members of the opposition began to look at their spending. It wasn’t until we filed an FOI request that the minister paid attention to the many trips to Europe, the luxury dinners, the expensive bottles of wine and the questionable salary practices, including one executive who was being paid for two full-time jobs at the same time.

Giving the report to the minister wasn’t sufficient to stop them from investing housing money in a numbered company in Manchester, England, whose only address was the lawyer’s office, or to stop HSC from paying for a seven-day luxury vacation in South Africa for a board member. It took public scrutiny, questions in the Legislature, press conferences and investigative media to address the spending at the Housing Services Corp. If we don’t have the ability to review the spending of the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre, how can we ensure that there is no misspending?

Look at Ornge air ambulance, where the ministry received an annual budget, audited financial statements, five-year business plans and quarterly financial reports, but still the organization was able to spiral out of control.

Mr. Speaker, time and again, Ontarians have seen scandals like these under this government. The public deserves to see how their money is being spent and scrutinize the practices of organizations like these that are set up to serve the public.

The Ontario Municipal Board Act required that the annual report be tabled in the Legislature, so those amendments were simply asking that in the new act, the government maintain the same level of transparency and accountability that the public expects. But they voted it down. Instead, the bill will actually result in less transparency and accountability.

We also put forward an amendment to increase transparency by requiring the hearings to be public, even if they were conducted electronically. But again, they voted it down.

The government also voted down a number of amendments that we put forward that were requested by the municipalities of Ontario. Under Bill 139, a policy statement issued under the Metrolinx Act, the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act or a prescribed policy or statement are each deemed to be a provincial policy statement for the purpose of this act.

As we all know, when you have more than one government document, there is potential for them to be in conflict.

As AMO said, “The intent of the provincial policy statement is to assemble all provincial policy that affects land use planning into one document to simplify and thus ensure all municipal planning is done in keeping with the provincial policies. In the past, planners had to sift through some hundred different pieces of legislation, regulation, and guidance to find provincial policy.”

The Manitoulin Planning Board had a similar concern. In a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, they said, “The designation of new provincial plans and policy statement without consultation or even notification will introduce significant uncertainty in the planning process, forcing planning authorities, proponents and citizens to navigate a constantly changing policy environment.”

We put forward an amendment to address this concern and reduce the confusion and conflicting direction by ensuring that the tribunal is looking at the provincial policy statement when they are making decisions, but the government voted that down. We also put forward an amendment that AMO requested to remove the government’s proposal to set qualifications for conservation authority boards. While it sounds good in theory, currently most conservation authority members are locally elected municipal councillors. You can’t force members of the public to elect municipal councillors with specific educational backgrounds.

If the minister sets a requirement for CA board members, such as they must be engineers or biologists, as the ministry staff suggested in our briefing, that would mean most councillors couldn’t sit on a conservation authority.

Municipalities cover many of the conservation authorities’ costs and should therefore have the ability to appoint councillors to the board to ensure municipal funds are expended appropriately.

During a presentation to committee, AMO president Lynn Dollin said, “Part IV,

section 12 of the bill states that municipal councils continue to have the authority to appoint conservation authority board members. This makes sense. Municipal councillors are representative of all walks of life in an area, and it is the council that pays the greatest proportion of the conservation authority’s funding. However,

section 40(1)(

a) of the bill indicates that the Lieutenant Governor in Council ‘may make regulations governing the composition of conservation authorities and prescribing additional requirements regarding the appointment and qualifications of members of conservation authorities.’ AMO has consistently maintained that until the province reinstates significant funding to conservation authorities, municipal government, as the major funder, should have sole right to appoint board members.”

And I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. One of the concerns that we talked about on second reading is that the name of the new tribunal is confusing. “Local planning appeals tribunal” makes it sound like each municipality has an individual appeal tribunal, when in fact it is a provincial body. People are already confusing the tribunal with the local appeal body, which is individual to each municipality. We put forward an amendment to end the confusion by changing the name to the Ontario planning appeal tribunal, but the government voted that down.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to address the housing shortage in Ontario. We have 171,000 families waiting for social housing. We have vacancy rates of 1%, which is essentially no vacancy, and we are still having housing affordability challenges. Statistics Canada recently reported that the number of Ontarians in core housing need has increased by 130,000 since 2011. This is people who are living in homes that need major repairs, aren’t large enough for the family, or that they can’t afford.

These are not just Toronto problems. StrategyCorp recently did a survey of CAOs from small- and medium-sized municipalities and found that they were overwhelmingly concerned that housing affordability would continue to decrease in Ontario, placing increased burdens on municipal social services.

Over and over, this government has lengthened the planning process. They have added 30 days here and 30 days there. For some they have good justification, but then you add them all up. We have a planning process that discourages building, a process that forces builders to pay significant carrying costs, which are then passed on to new homeowners and renters. We put forward a number of amendments to streamline the process, but the government voted them down. We know that to address the housing shortage and affordability, we need to reduce delays in the planning process. That’s why a PC government would remove the extra delays that this government has added.

We also put forward an amendment that would allow the tribunal to proceed with considering an appeal if a municipality passes a motion acknowledging that their decision is inconsistent with the provincial policy statement or conflicts with official plans.

The planning process is already long, and adding more delays doesn’t benefit anyone. If a municipality has knowingly made a decision that is inconsistent with the provincial policy statement, this would allow them to acknowledge that so the tribunal can proceed with the hearing and decision rather than having the delay of sending it back to the municipality.

The government member said that a municipality would never knowingly make a decision that is against the planning process, but I can tell you that in my riding, the municipalities have been very clear that they are not approving a landfill beside the Thames River, no matter what the provincial policy says. That was one that would apply in this case.

For many communities that are fighting these appeals, it’s already a long and stressful process. They would like it resolved as soon as possible. I have seen that first-hand with this group in my riding that is fighting this landfill. They shouldn’t have to wait for the tribunal to determine that the decision is against the policy statement and refer it back to the municipality, only to have it referred back to the tribunal because the municipality has no intention of changing their decision.

If a municipality knows that it has not conformed to the official policy statement or the official plan and has no intention of changing that decision, it should not be held up waiting for a time period to pass before it can go to the tribunal. This would have made the process more efficient for everyone and resolved the issues more quickly, but the government voted it down.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the appeal is due to the fact that municipalities have not made a decision. Under Bill 139, if a municipality fails to make a decision, it goes to the tribunal, they refer it back to the municipality, and everyone continues to wait. We put forward an amendment that would allow the tribunal to make the decision at the first hearing unless the municipality passes a motion indicating that they are prepared to make a new decision and request the opportunity to do so.

That means that if a municipality is ready to make a decision, they have the right to do so, but if a municipality isn’t ready to make a decision, it would avoid the delay and expense of the application being heard by the tribunal and referring it back to the municipality, only to return to the tribunal for a second hearing after the waiting period.

Our amendment would have reduced this delay, but the government refused to pass it. Ironically, one of the only places that this bill tries to reduce delays is one we can’t support because it removes the rights of property owners.

A PC government would ensure that all ministries have respect for and understanding of the importance of protecting private property rights. Each ministry would have to demonstrate a strong public need to encroach on private property rights. I wish that we were seeing that same commitment from this government.

Bill 139 once again allows access to private property without a warrant. This government has added this clause in a number of pieces of legislation. When we questioned it, what was their justification? They said they were making it consistent with other recent changes. Mr. Speaker, when you’re doing something wrong, pointing out that you have been making the same mistake other places is not a valid excuse.

In this case, the tribunal is looking at land use planning issues. They’re rarely going to be urgent, and in most cases the owner of the land to be assessed will be involved in the appeal, so getting permission to enter the property would be relatively easy.

There are very valid reasons that a search warrant might be required. As the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said in their submission, “A warrantless unannounced visit to enter and inspect is excessive and unnecessary. Many farm operations utilize biosecurity provisions to minimize the risk of disease, pathogen or pest transfers to livestock, poultry and crops carried on vehicle tires or footwear. Simply put, restricting access to farms minimizes the risks of disease transfers.

Warrantless entry fails to acknowledge that unannounced entry into areas frequented by livestock or crops can pose a risk not only to those animals or crops, but also to the entrant themselves, as they are unaware of potential risks inherent on the farm.” We put forward an amendment to require people accessing property to have a warrant or permission of the owner and a companion amendment which would create emergency exemptions if evidence was at risk of being destroyed, but the government voted both of them down.

Bill 139 also allowed tribunal members and employers to enter private property without requiring them to identify themselves to the owner or occupier unless asked. We pointed out the risks this creates, such as biosecurity on farms and safety hazards on construction sites.

I’m pleased that the government listened and supported our amendment to require the person entering the property to proactively identify themselves. This change will help prevent injuries and will respect the rights of property owners.

The government also supported one of our amendments regarding transition. Previously, the bill allowed the minister to decide case-by-case what appeals should be continued before the OMB and what would be moved to the new tribunal. We were concerned that it could look like the minister was treating his friends differently by sending their appeals where they had the greatest chance of success. We put forward an amendment to remove this conflict of interest by clarifying that the regulations had to identify the class or type of appeal that was being moved to the new tribunal, rather than case-by-case.

We’re pleased that the government supported our amendment; this will help provide clarity and avoid the appearance of conflict.

However, there are still a number of concerns about transition and timing. As a councillor from Aurora said, “Is this new legislation perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect.

There are a number of issues that need to be clarified before the final draft is enacted—in particular what constitutes a major transit station area and what are the implications for smaller communities like Aurora when considering MTSAs in official plans; what sun-setting provisions will be built into the act so that we avoid a run on appeals before this act comes into effect or confusion about what provisions apply to appeals that are currently under way. I think transition will be the key issue going forward as we move from the previous legislation to the new legislation and all that entails.”

We heard from a number of people about their concerns on transition. I want to encourage the government to ensure that they have it right and that municipalities are prepared before they launch the new system.

There has been a lot of discussion about how the limited appeals will impact hearings at municipalities. I think it is a conversation that AMO and municipalities need to have before the new system launches. It may be that they need to make changes to their hearing process, to give builders more time to present or to make other changes in their planning process.

The impact of the planning appeals process is significant. It impacts homes, communities and the environment. We need to ensure that we have it right. We will be watching for draft regulations, and we will be looking for the timing of the transition to be based on research, consultation and good planning.

The transition isn’t the only part of this bill that is left to regulation. In their written submission, the Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association said, “The lack of information about the funding and operation of the proposed Local Planning Appeal Support Centre ... makes it impossible to evaluate whether the LPASC can meaningfully address the financial and other barriers to participation of resident associations and community members in the LPAT appeals.”

The Downtown Toronto Residents Associations’ Alliance had the same concern with the lack of information when we had our briefing with the ministry. They were unable to even answer basic questions, such as who the support centre would assist and what the budget would be. As the support centre is put in place and the regulations implemented in this bill are developed, we will be watching to see that the government does it right, that they ensure that people get a say in the future of their communities, that we protect environmentally sensitive and agricultural land and that we get the housing that people so desperately need.

I think on that one it’s important to recognize that that’s again about the centre that does the funding to help individuals in an appeal. The way the bill is presently written, it doesn’t help the organization of individuals to do the appeal. With that, it would take a lot of the ability of communities working together to make sure that their community concerns were heard in each and every appeal that went forward.

I think it’s also very important in this part that we recognize that we need to open it up in the regulations, to make sure that people are not prohibited from appealing the decision after the decision is made, where it’s not made in their best interests. If they just made a comment on it but weren’t an applicant in the appeal, we want to make sure that they can actually be heard.

We support OMB reform. We are disappointed that the government missed so many opportunities to make this bill better, to add transparency and to ensure that applications and appeals have been fair and objective and follow proper procedures. Some of these issues can be addressed by regulation, and I hope the government will do that. These issues are important, and we need to ensure that we have a system that works, that respects municipal decision-making, helps well-planned developments get built and provides communities with a voice for their future. I think it’s very important, that last line.

I think the whole thing is set up to try and make the system work better for municipalities, and I totally support that. But I think we want to make sure, in the process, that we don’t do that at the expense of the community and that the people who live in this community have their involvement.

If you look at the appeals that are presently going to the Ontario Municipal Board, Mr. Speaker—and I want to just make this very clear—the appeals going there, where the public is involved: They are there because they are concerned about their community. They are never there to—I shouldn’t say “never,” but the community is not very often there to further their own interest. It’s always the community interest.

We want to do everything we can in this bill to make sure that we don’t take away some of their rights and abilities to defend the community position, as I mentioned, for the good folks who are opposed to a landfill in Oxford—that we move it forward more expeditiously but make sure we don’t take away their ability to voice their concerns to be heard within the system; as appeals go forward, that they’re not let out of those appeals.

Again, I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this time to critique what was in there. Mostly the critique, I suppose, was what the government didn’t do, which was to listen to the people who wanted to be heard.

I made reference to the chief government whip, who did make a presentation to the committee. I used him in my presentation because what the government did with the timing of it—it could not possibly have been that the government was that anxious to get it done quickly because there was enough time to make a presentation, as I did myself on another issue. We very much appreciate that, but I think that pointed out that we could have and should have taken more time to hear from the people who wanted to be heard so we could address some of those things.

A lot of those issues that I spoke about in our presentation this morning—I think the government, when they go back to their office and reassess what the bill does, would say, “Gosh, with a lot of those, we could have fixed that without any negative impact to anyone else.” It would have made the bill better for the people who wanted it that way.

Again, thank you very much for giving me the time. We look forward to further debate on the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I was listening to the member intently on his one-hour lead-in. He made some good points. He talked about that he felt there wasn’t enough consultation or enough presentations during committee. It was evident that people felt that way. That speaks to what the government has been doing: time-allocating everything. They’re also extending that time allocation to committee.

He talked about the legal process, that there are concerns around that, and that can be challenged. When you have a bill, we don’t want those complications to happen. We want to make sure that people can go through the system and actually get the outcome that it’s supposed to give them.

He questioned the tribunal process and the powers of not allowing certain groups to participate through that process when there’s a development challenge.

He also talked about amendments with reference to the composition of the support centre, and how those were shot down.

He made a lot of good points as to why we really need to pay attention and hear from the public during the committee process in order to change the bill or amend things in bills to have them work the way they’re intended.

Mr. Speaker, recently I noticed that there was an

article in the Toronto Star. This is the headline: “Developers Racing to OMB Ahead of New Provincial Planning Rules.” What has happened is, “City officials are warning that developers are rushing en masse to appeal problematic applications to the powerful provincial tribunal that oversees land use planning in order to avoid a less favourable system.”

So you see, there are a lot of things going on with regard to Bill 139, and we have to make sure that when we’re debating things, we have ample opportunity to get it right, to hear voices from all sides and concerns, so that the bill works with the intentions that we, here in the House, write.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you for allowing me a couple of minutes to make comments on the member from Oxford.

I had the opportunity to work with him in committee on clause-by-clause. Frankly, Speaker, listening to him this morning, my take from it is that he does support what we’ve done. He was struggling to find issues with what we’ve done. He was really struggling. But anyway, I take that as a good positive. We had some good discussion during clause-by-clause.

Let me focus and maybe spend some time talking about the lack of consultation. I only hoped that the member would have attended some of the public meetings we had across the province, which I attended the majority of, because he would have seen the consultation process that took place from anybody who wanted to come in and talk about what we were doing. There was an enormous amount of consultation in different communities across the province. That’s what drove the government to come up with this legislation, Bill 139.

I want to touch on the conservation authorities. The reality is that their conservation act wasn’t touched for a long, long time. I know that Conservation Ontario and the majority of the conservation authorities had an enormous amount of input, and, frankly, we came out with, I believe, a good product. Yes, it went through hearings. It went through clause-by-clause to some length, quite some length, but it was a good, healthy discussion and we appreciate the contribution from all sides.

I hope at the end of the day, through the regulatory process, we come out with something we can all live with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m pleased to rise to speak about this. Well, actually, I’m not entirely pleased to rise again, because this will be the fourth time in seven sitting days that we have to speak about the fact that the people of Ontario are being truncated and terminated from speaking yet again. I have to tell you, Speaker, I’ve spoken about closure three times in this Legislature in the last couple of days, and now here we are, where members are being cut out of speaking at a committee. I have noticed that this is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern that we see from this government.

I’ve said it before; carved over a hundred years ago into the walls here is “Audi alteram partem,” “Hear the other side.” That’s what the government is supposed to do. They’re supposed to listen to us as we represent the people. Not only do they not want to listen to us here in the opposition; they don’t want to listen to the people. They don’t want them to come to those hearings. They are afraid of what they will hear at those hearings. That’s become painfully obvious in this Legislature, and that’s very, very sad.

The Speaker speaks often about the race to the bottom. I think we’ve now seen the bottom, and it’s not a pretty sight to know what it’s like when you see the people of Ontario and the opposition members cut out and shut out of the opportunity to stand in the Legislature or to come to Toronto—or hearings elsewhere in Ontario, where they should be—and have those opportunities to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the comments that were made by the member from Oxford. First of all, I have to say he’s quite correct that there was not a proper consultation that took place. As Chair of the committee, I was there for the debates. I had to deal with the people who wanted to speak, who were told, “No, there’s no room.”

I understand, listening to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, that there was a consultation process that took place before the bill was developed. Fair enough; that’s probably a good idea. But once a bill is developed, once you have in your hands exactly what the government is proposing to do, that’s a whole different animal, and that’s one where people should have the opportunity, on an extensive basis, to come in and speak about it.

It was pretty clear, when city of Toronto councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam wasn’t able to get a speaking spot, that this was not an adequate process. There’s just no getting around it. The member from Oxford and our member from Windsor–Tecumseh were very strong in speaking for more consultation, and they were right.

I want to note that in the course of debating the bill the member for St. Catharines, Mr. Bradley, and our member from Welland, Ms. Forster, came to the committee to look for amendments to deal with conservation authorities that have gone off the rails. In fact, both members spoke to the problems with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and made a very convincing case that structures had to be in place to deal with problems when there was clearly an approach that caused deep problems in their communities. I’m being very gentle, Speaker.

I am very sorry the committee didn’t pick up on the changes that they were proposing, because I think in fact the situation in Niagara is quite serious.

Lastly—my colleague from London–Fanshawe spoke about this—not setting a date for transition to the OMB is a problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oxford has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to thank the member from London–Fanshawe, the parliamentary assistant and the members from Nipissing and Toronto–Danforth for their kind comments.

Just a couple of things. The comments from London–Fanshawe: I think that’s so important. I believe that the transition rules should have been in the legislation, because we are now seeing all kinds of people trying to decide whether it can be for their benefit to apply or to withdraw their application dealing with what’s going on, or to stop development altogether while we’re waiting for the regulation to be made. Now that it’s not in the legislation, I hope that the ministry will do that as quickly as possible.

The other thing is, I wanted to speak to the parliamentary assistant’s comments about the consultation. If he had listened to my presentation, Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t that I thought I needed to know more about the process. It was that I believe that I should have been able to learn what was needed in the bill from the people who came to present.

I talked the whole hour about people who would have wanted to come to committee because they had information that could help us make this bill a better bill. The consultation was mentioned by the member from Toronto–Danforth. It wasn’t the consultation that was taking place around the province of what needed to be done. Now that we have come to a template of what needs to be done, have the people come in who know what needs to be done to see if this is the right way to do it. If they had done that and if they had taken the time—I think the member from Nipissing mentioned the time frame and the time allocations.

This bill wasn’t time-allocated. The government didn’t seem to think there was any great rush to get it done.

Why didn’t we take a little bit more time to get information so we could have done it right? Yes, I think there are a lot of good things in this bill, but I think what could have happened if we had worked together is we could have made it a lot better—not for some, but for all.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: This afternoon, we have a choir coming from Broadlands Public School. I’d like to welcome the two teachers who lead the choir, Madame Kim and Madame Schatz. Thank you so much.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce in the members’ gallery somebody who heads up the Terry Fox Run in Oakville, Nathalie de Caen. She also works in my office at the Ministry of Labour. Please welcome her to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to our guest from the Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University, Palmer Lockridge, as well as Tommi-Lee Gauthier from Laurentian and Antonio Brieva from Waterloo University. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I want to welcome students from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance: Andrew Clubine, Roch Goulet, Nadia Bathish and Chandra Narra, who I had the pleasure of meeting this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome in the members’ gallery Don O’Neil from the great city of Quinte West. He’s visiting Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome some excellent partners of ours from the Lung Association here in Ontario. The Lung Association is the leading organization working to promote lung health. Please join me in welcoming George Habib, Peter Glazier, Eric Pegolo and Monica Kocsmaros.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I met with OUSA this morning and they presented their mental health strategy, In It Together. I met with Stephanie Bellotto, Andrew Clubine and Aidan Hibma. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: It’s a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature constituents from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Kyra Trainor, former page Zara Trainor and future page candidate Sullivan Pearson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome from OUSA a number of students who are here from various institutions. Nadia Bathish is here from Brock, Chandra Narra from Trent-Durham, Stephanie Bellotto from Wilfrid Laurier, Ryan Deshpande from McMaster, Roch Goulet from Laurentian, Aidan Hibma from Brock, and Kanwar Brar from Laurier, as well as Sophie Helpard, who is the executive director of OUSA. Welcome, all.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am really happy to welcome a very familiar face up in the gallery. Victoria Hunt from OECTA is here. This is Vic’s last week with OECTA and this is her last question period, unless she wants to come again tomorrow. Vic retires on Friday after 20 years of supporting public education. She’s been a really strong and effective advocate.

You’ve been a real joy to work with, Vicky. Thank you so much for all you have done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Congratulations, Vic.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome my new friend Vicky Bismilla to Queen’s Park this morning. Welcome, Vicky.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome Elliot Zolf, a grade 10 student who is shadowing me today, from Forest Hill Collegiate in Toronto. Elliot, old-timers like the member from Windsor–Tecumseh would know, is the great-nephew of Larry Zolf.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a number of students from a high school in my great riding of Davenport. From St. Mary Catholic Academy, I want to welcome the students who are joining us here at Queen’s Park today.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome one of my constituents from the wonderful riding of Hamilton Mountain, Deanna Allain. She is a fantastic advocate for service dogs. She has her service dog with her today in training, Carlin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome, in the east members’ gallery, Eric Pegolo, now with the Lung Association, a long-time staffer of mine until very recently.

Ms. Catherine Fife: On behalf of the member from Welland, I’d like to welcome page Allan Buri; his mother, Sharon Saxon-Buri; and his grandmother, Linda Saxon. They’re in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to welcome the family of our page captain Isabelle Funk. Her mother, Elisha Funk, and her grandmother, Mari Lauzon, are with us today.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I have friends that are going to be joining me momentarily in the Chamber. I’d like to welcome Anne Wolf and Keith Blackwell from Strathroy to the Chamber today.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great honour to welcome Dr. Geoffrey Hinton, regarded as one of the fathers of artificial intelligence; indeed, he is the father of deep learning. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Geoffrey Hinton.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to introduce two very hard-working public servants from our MTO provincial highways management department in the east gallery: Janet Leader and Shawn Nickerson.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: From OUSA, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, we have Tommi-Lee Gauthier, Antonio Brieva, Palmer Lockridge, Alexandra Bursey, Chukky Ibe and Landon Tulk from Western University. Welcome, all. It’s always great to have OUSA here in the Legislature.

Highway deaths

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex on a point of order.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I seek unanimous consent for a moment of silence for all those who have died recently in accidents along the 401 highway, especially those in Carnage Alley: namely Gary Lent from Etobicoke, the Brundritt family from Amherstburg, Sarah and Freya Payne from London, Marc Lafontaine from Windsor and Alyssa Smulders, also from Windsor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence for those that were killed on the stretch of Highway 401. Do we agree? Agreed.

I’d ask everyone, if they can, to please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): God rest their souls.

It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. The People’s Guarantee lays out Patrick Brown and the PCs’ plan for hydro in Ontario. Under Premier Wynne and the Liberals, we know that hydro rates have tripled. In fact, families are paying on average $1,000 more a year than when the Liberal government was first elected back in 2003.

The People’s Guarantee is a plan to get hydro back on track. It provides an additional 12% off hydro bills. That means the average household will save $173 per year on their hydro bill under Patrick Brown and the Ontario PCs. Mr. Speaker, isn’t that a plan that even the Liberals can get behind?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s becoming quite clear that the PCs and their leader can’t be trusted. They’ve now decided to say anything to anybody to make sure that they can get elected. Months after trying to deny our 25% reduction on bills for families and as many as half a million small businesses and farms by voting against our fair hydro plan, they’re now sneakily including it in their own platform. Worse than that, that claim about further reducing rates is reckless and only opens up an even larger hole in their already gaping fiscal plan.

I believe the proof is in the fine print at the back of their platform: over $12 billion in cuts. This includes over $6 billion of across-the-board unspecified cuts and, of course, shifting conservation program costs from taxpayers, again making sure their fiscal hole continues to grow. We’ve acted to support—

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

Mr. Todd Smith: More Liberal spin. They’re just hoping something actually sticks, but it’s not.

Just look at what our leader said this morning. He wanted you to consider this: Premier Wynne and the Liberals accepted $1.3 million in donations from companies that received the biggest contracts for energy that we don’t need any longer in Ontario. That meant these insider contracts resulted in families overpaying on their electricity bills by $9.2 billion. That’s the biggest reason why our electricity bills are skyrocketing. Then, to make matters worse, the Wynne Liberals sold off Hydro One. It was a fire sale to reward her donors, insiders and fat-cat friends. That’s why this government can’t be trusted after 14 long years.

Mr. Speaker, I do wonder, when did the Liberals decide they were going to be for the insiders and not for the people who are paying the hydro bills?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It makes you wonder who is defending families. It’s this side of the House that is actually defending families. We brought forward a 25% reduction that all families are seeing, but it begs the question because, under their plan, costs are going to rise.

Let’s look at their carbon tax. The truth is that under their carbon tax scheme, you’ll pay more and get less. Independent expert analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute, for example, confirms this, showing their carbon tax would add $1,200 in annual costs per family, and this is more than any of the tax cuts the Conservatives claim to be offering as well. The National Post has called it a “shell game,” noting that any tax cut will be paid for by an 81% increase in the existing provincial tax on gasoline.

When it comes to energy, it is this government that has brought forward serious reductions for families right across this province.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister would rather talk about cap-and-trade than talk about hydro, because their record over the last 13 years is repugnant when it comes to the hydro plan.

Our electricity plan, our hydro plan, unlike the Liberals, isn’t a risky borrowing scheme. We’re not going to spend billions of dollars in interest just to get through the next election. Our plan, the People’s Guarantee, offers real, lasting relief for the people of Ontario on their hydro bills. Twelve per cent more off hydro bills is the People’s Guarantee. We think families in Ontario deserve that after paying the fastest-rising rates in North America, thanks to this government.

Mr. Speaker, don’t the Liberals realize Ontario deserves long-lasting hydro relief?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The only thing that party is guaranteeing is that everything is going to go up in Ontario. That’s their guarantee. They’re even talking about our fair hydro plan, the 25% that we brought forward and they voted against. They talk about it all the time, but they have nothing that is going to do anything that will actually help the families the way we have done on this side of the House.

And given the gap that we know is in their plan, we know across-the-board cuts are coming, just like the Harris years, putting both existing and future programs at risk. We already know investments like the $300 million in home and school retrofits and the $575 million in social housing repairs will be scrapped once the Conservatives drop cap-and-trade and create a more expensive carbon tax.

But what else, Mr. Speaker? Are they going to cancel the OESP program? Are they going to cancel the First Nations delivery credit? Are they going to make sure they eliminate the $100-million Affordability Fund?

Mr. Speaker, all they know how to do is cut.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. All sides, both sides—all three parties have indicated they cannot control themselves. I’ll get it. We’re in warnings.

New question?

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: We’ll try this again with the Minister of Energy today. The People’s Guarantee lays out an additional 12% off families’ hydro bills, but it doesn’t stop there. It will rein in ridiculous executive salaries, like the ones at Hydro One. We know the Liberals won’t, because they’re the ones who signed the contracts in the first place for $4.5 million for the CEO at Hydro One. Mr. Speaker, the PCs will rein in the $4.5-million salaries that the Liberals are doling out. Will the Liberals keep handing out millions in salaries that Ontarians can’t afford?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The Liberal government will continue to act on behalf of the people of Ontario and keep electricity as affordable as possible, as clean as possible and as reliable as possible, unlike the opposition, which has a plan to rip up contracts that are signed. You know what, Mr. Speaker? At the end of the day, that really makes this province a banana republic, so it actually makes you think about what they’ve done when they’re putting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned and the member from Oxford is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, it begs the question: What are they going to continue to cut? I’ve talked about $575 million for social housing repairs. Are they going to cut the Ontario Electricity Support Program? Are they going to cut the RRRP, which helps hundreds of thousands of people right across our province, especially in rural and northern parts of the province?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: The members of the Liberal government keep fabricating these tales. They’re just not believable—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Unacceptable. Withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, they’re making it up as they go along. It’s a word that starts with “L” and ends with “S.” They cannot continue to do this. They can’t continue—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw. And if he does it again, I’ll warn him.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, sir. Withdraw. I was referring to “Liberals,” Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not accepting a challenge to the Chair when I make a ruling. It will not happen again, or I’ll name you.

Carry on.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. The $4.5-million salaries are the legacy of this Liberal government in Ontario. They’re the reason—one of the reasons; one of the many reasons—why Ontario has astronomical hydro prices. Do the Liberals not think Ontario needs long-lasting relief on their hydro bills, instead of their cynical borrowing scheme?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: A 25% reduction is something that we’ve seen in this province over the last few months that they voted against. When you’re wanting to talk about how we’re helping families, this is significant savings for families.

But it also begs the question as to how they’re going to explain the $12 billion in cuts. Or what about the $1,200 that families will see in annual costs thanks to their carbon tax scheme? That is more—that is absolutely more—than any tax cut that they’re proposing or even to be offering. Unlike our cap-and-trade on greenhouse gas pollution from business, their carbon tax would not ensure that emissions would be reduced either. The Conservatives are also hiding the fact that they cut over $6 billion in green projects that help fight climate change. The important thing about energy and the environment is that these two work hand in hand.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Again, I’m talking about electricity prices in Ontario, and the minister just doesn’t understand or he wants to talk about something else. But if he wants to talk about cap-and-trade, we will keep hundreds of millions of dollars from leaving Ontario for Hollywood, California and Quebec City, Quebec, keeping that money here in Ontario to provide tax relief in this province instead of sending money elsewhere.

The government’s own internal documents and the Auditor General have confirmed that if the Wynne Liberals are re-elected, Ontario’s electricity rates are going to skyrocket to the highest that they’ve ever been. They can’t be trusted, Speaker. That’s why the People’s Guarantee is a plan for long-lasting hydro relief here in Ontario.

The question is simple this morning: Why doesn’t the government support real, long-lasting relief for Ontario electricity customers?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Long-lasting relief was brought to the people of Ontario—and they voted against it. Their record shows that they could care less about making sure that the people of Ontario actually get a break, and actually worry about making sure that they can put out a glossy magazine that people will recycle as quickly as they will when they read it.

We’re making sure that we’re helping families with a 25% reduction. We’re making sure we’re helping our First Nations individuals. We’re making sure that we help our individuals who live in northern or rural parts of our province.

We know that the fine print in the back of their document talks about $12 billion in cuts. This includes over $6 billion of across-the-board, unspecified cuts. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Thousands of teachers being fired? Thousands of registered nurses without a job? That’s what their legacy is. On this side of the House, our legacy is building this province up.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Acting Premier why the privatized Hydro One is trying to skirt the ban on wintertime hydro disconnections with their proposal to have families install prepay meters. The minister responded by saying that that isn’t Hydro One’s intention. But families and businesses struggling to keep up with their soaring hydro bills can’t afford for Hydro One to have a change of heart. They need a guarantee that prepay meters will not be coming to Ontario.

Will the Acting Premier commit today to giving people the peace of mind that they deserve and ban the use of prepay hydro meters in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I don’t know how much more clear I can be. Maybe the members of the third party need to take their ideological earplugs out, Mr. Speaker, because last week the member for Toronto–Danforth and the VP of customer care at Hydro One both participated in an interview on the radio. In that interview, Hydro One was very clear when they said that none of this will be forced onto any customer. If, in fact, we are to proceed with this technology, we will still need to develop and test—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara Falls is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It will be at the customer’s discretion. So I’ll remind the third party one more time: Any technology that electricity utility companies introduce must abide by the winter disconnection laws. Additionally, it was Hydro One that was the first to voluntarily end winter disconnections with their winter relief program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the clarity that the people of Ontario need is a full-out ban on prepaid hydro meters. That’s the clarity that they deserve.

The minister also said yesterday that the OEB has turned down proposals like this before because the OEB is in the business of protecting ratepayers. I’d like to remind this Liberal government and the minister in particular that looking out for ratepayers is actually—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina is warned.

I’m sorry. Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to remind this government, this Liberal government, and the minister in particular, that looking out for ratepayers is actually the responsibility, the job, of the government, not the OEB. When will the government do its job, stand up for the people of Ontario and put a complete ban on the implementation of prepay hydro meters in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s this government that stands up and brings forward an affordability plan through the fair hydro plan to actually help ratepayers, and that party votes against it. We bring forward a plan that actually helps First Nations individuals living on-reserve by eliminating their delivery charge; it’s that party that votes against it. We bring forward a plan that increases the Ontario Electricity Support Program, which helps low-income individuals; it’s that party that votes against it, Mr. Speaker.

The OEB has a mandate to make sure that they protect ratepayers, and it’s this government that has done that. Besides the fact that they vote against everything we do to actually protect ratepayers, when you look, at the end of the day, what the OEB is doing is reviewing the application. There is no prepaid meter coming to Ontario. It is actually not even being considered right now. It is being reviewed.

At the end of the day, Hydro One has said this would be an opt-in program if—if, Mr. Speaker—this was to happen.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, this Liberal government seems quite comfortable leaving the fate of Ontario families and businesses up to the private, for-profit Hydro One. But this company has already shown very clearly that it does not have the best interests of Ontarians at heart. It has applied for numerous rate increases. It has invested in a dirty, coal-burning American energy company instead of our own power grid. Now it desperately wants to get around a ban on wintertime hydro disconnections.

When will this Liberal government admit that the privatization experiment has failed, stand up for Ontario families and businesses, and begin to undo the damage done by decades of Conservative and Liberal sell-offs by bringing Hydro One back into public hands?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, the law states that there can be no winter disconnections. This proposed idea in the application brought forward by Hydro One wouldn’t be able to circumvent that. That would not be able to happen. That was said by Hydro One in a radio interview that the member from Toronto–Danforth was participating in. LDCs know they can’t circumvent the law.

When looking at the prepaid program—this is being reviewed right now by the OEB. If and when the OEB makes a decision—and they have a history of actually defending the ratepayer and making sure that they significantly reduce applications brought forward by any LDC. They have the ratepayers’ interests at heart. This would be an opt-in program—

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

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. The Liberals and Conservatives like to privatize things. They did it with electricity, and now they’re doing it with health care. Thanks to both of these parties, there are over 1,000 for-profit private clinics operating in Ontario today. Now the Premier’s health care privatization bill will open the door even wider for private health care in Ontario when we already know, just by looking to our neighbours in the south, that privatized health care doesn’t work for the vast majority of people.

The NDP has an amendment to this omnibus bill that will ensure that any new health care facilities that open as a result of these changes will be not-for-profit. If the Acting Premier and this Liberal government are serious about making sure there is no more private health care in Ontario, they should commit to passing the NDP amendment in committee. Will the Acting Premier commit to doing that right now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the legislation, which we’re actually going through clause-by-clause in committee right now this week. It provides a number of accountability measures, enhancing the oversight, the supervision, the transparency and the accountability of many of those health activities that take place outside of our hospitals.

Private hospitals are one category of that because way back in 1931, there was

an act created called the Private Hospitals Act. The intent through this legislation is to repeal that act, to end it, to delete it and get rid of it.

From long before any Liberal government, we currently have six grandfathered private hospitals that reside within that act. This legislation, as we go forward, is going to transition those existing grandfathered private hospitals into a better regime of oversight, accountability and transparency. I think we all can appreciate the value of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians don’t believe that a person’s health should depend on how much money they have. Dr. Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, says, “We are very concerned with

schedule 9, which will effectively lift the ban on the creation of private hospitals in Ontario. Thus, we oppose the repeal of the Private Hospitals Act and the Independent Health Facilities Act and ask for the complete withdrawal of

schedule 9.”

The NDP has another amendment to Bill 160 that would do exactly this: remove

schedule 9 from the bill entirely to ensure that no private for-profit hospitals open in Ontario. Is this Liberal government planning to act on their own rhetoric and vote for the NDP amendment in committee so that Ontario families can actually rest assured that they will never, ever have to pay out of pocket for hospital services?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re absolutely committed, as a Liberal government, to ending the presence of private hospitals in this province. There are six grandfathered. We’re transitioning—I don’t know if the leader of the third party is suggesting that by deleting

schedule 9, those hospitals will not have a regulatory or oversight accountability regime that applies to them.

What this legislation, in

schedule 9, does is it addresses those existing gaps in oversight; it strengthens enforcement and accountability. I can’t imagine that the leader of the third party is suggesting that we leave those entities without oversight, without accountability, without transparency to Ontarians.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is such important legislation that, in addition to the fact that we have effectively had a ban on the creation of any new private hospitals in this province for a long time, we’re getting rid of an almost 100-year piece of legislation and increasing accountability.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s shocking that the Minister of Health is basically saying that the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario is wrong. I’m shocked. I’m surprised. They usually are quite well-informed.

Elisabeth Ballerman of the National Union of Public and General Employees says this of the Liberal health care privatization omnibus bill: “Adding a for-profit angle to health care in Ontario is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.... Privatization of our health care system leaves Ontarians vulnerable to a number of risks, not only to their health but to their overall well-being.” Dangerous is how experts are describing this latest Liberal privatization scheme.

Has the Liberal government learned nothing from the disastrous Hydro One sell-off, or will the Acting Premier push ahead with health care privatization and force Ontario families to pay the price?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re doing the opposite of what the leader of the third party is suggesting; we’re actually ending private hospitals.

I have to give credit to the Ontario Health Coalition. We’ve been working closely with them, including with their legal team, over the past week to make sure we could be absolutely crystal clear and that any future governments would not have the ability to create private hospitals unless they were to come back into this legislation and amend the legislation.

We want to rid this province of private hospitals, but acknowledge that there are six that were grandfathered that are providing services to Ontario. We need to, however, move them into a regime of full accountability, transparency and oversight by the Ministry of Health. I think if the member opposite were to speak with the Ontario Health Coalition and were to speak with RNAO, particularly once this legislation is passed, they will be satisfied that our intent is equal to theirs.

Government’s record

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the government House leader. The level of the government’s debate over the last few days has been appalling and probably embarrassing for them. They’ve been reduced to being talking-point robots, spoon-fed nonsense from their Liberal research bureau. You can’t trust a word they say. Nothing that comes out of their mouths has any credibility.

I want you to look at the history. The Ottawa Citizen wrote that the “Liberals ... are declaring themselves the champions of facts,” but in reality “the Ontario Liberals are making things worse” as “we get dubious political spin dressed up as fact-checking.”

We all remember the Bob Probert incident, when the Minister of Energy had to issue an apology to Troy Crowder because the Liberal research services couldn’t even fact-check a hockey fight. That’s the kind of team that’s feeding this government the utter nonsense and malarkey that we’re hearing from them.

So, Speaker, my question: As the leader of the government—

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, thank you very much, Speaker, for the question from the member opposite. I think that when we speak about the deep, hidden cuts in their glossy magazine platform, that is talking about facts. When we talk about the fact that right there on page 76 of their glossy magazine there are $12 billion worth of cuts, asking the opposition—asking the Conservatives and Patrick Brown—to explain to Ontarians what services and what programs they’re going to cut is not wasting time. I think Ontarians deserve to know what services and what programs the PC Party and Patrick Brown are going to cut, because on this side of the House, we’re committed to—

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

A reminder to the member, and all members, that you refer to somebody either by their title or by their riding, and I hope it stays that way.

Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the government House leader, who has acquiesced to Liberal research services that can’t fact-check their way out of a wet paper bag.

I’m going to give him some more highlights. The Toronto Star wrote, “Liberals Mocked Over ‘Frivolous’ Complaint That Tories, NDP Are Breaking Fundraising Law.”

Let’s not forget about the time the Liberal research bureau got the two downtown Toronto venues mixed up. The Ottawa Citizen wrote about it, saying, “Crying sexism without having done their research reveals something about them...” The Sun summarized it by asking, “Is There a Twit Club?”

Then there was a TVO reporter who—I can’t even say what he said because it’s unparliamentary language.

Again, back to the government House leader: Are you going to take back control from the Liberal researchers? Are you going to take it back and bring facts back to this government’s House, or are you going to continue to lower the debate in this House?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, $12 billion worth of deep cuts is what Patrick Brown and the Conservatives—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will correct.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Sorry; $12 billion worth of deep cuts is what the Conservatives and their leader are guaranteeing to the people of Ontario, and that is not acceptable to us. Under their plan, Ontarians will pay more and will get less. They’re going to cut $6 billion worth of programs that will ensure our hospitals are more energy-efficient and that our schools are more energy-efficient and are good places for our children to study. They will cut all environmental programming so that we can’t really tackle the issue of climate change. In fact, they’re going to bring a carbon tax that is going to cost people more money.

That’s not the kind of People’s Guarantee we need from the opposition. They need to explain to Ontarians what their $12-billion cuts are.

Mercury poisoning

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, Chief Fobister and members of the Grassy Narrows First Nation travelled here with a simple request. Will this Liberal government build a mercury poisoning treatment centre in Grassy Narrows so that the sick and dying can get care without being separated from their loved ones?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question.

Speaker, I can tell you today that this morning there was a very productive and effective meeting with Minister Philpott, with Chief Paishk, with Chief Fobister, with myself and various advisers representing the chiefs, the federal government and the province of Ontario. I’m quoting Minister Philpott at that meeting this morning. She said, “We have turned a page on these issues”—that is the mercury issues. That was met by a round of applause from all of those at this morning’s meeting.

Our technical staff is continuing with the meeting as I speak, and I can tell you, Speaker, that later today there will be further details released. It was very productive. The issue has been advanced in a good way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Why not green-light this project today, send a construction crew to Grassy Narrows this week and just get the job done?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. David Zimmer: As I’ve said, we had a very productive meeting this morning on a host of issues.

In addition to that, we had this meeting this morning on other issues. There will be more details later today. But it was a good meeting.

Lung disease

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know that lung disease affects millions of Ontarians, not just the 2.4 million who live with a chronic respiratory illness, but also the millions more who deserve to breathe with ease. Our government has been taking action to promote lung health and prevent lung disease.

Last year, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of our Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, which helps smokers quit, protects people from exposure to second-hand smoke and works to protect the health of children and youth. As a result of these efforts, we have decreased the smoking rate from 20.9% in 2005 to 17.4%, about 480,000 less.

Can the minister please explain what other steps our government is taking to improve lung health for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale for the question. If I may, I’d like to take a moment first to recognize the tremendous work the member has done to advocate for better lung health in Ontario. We can all breathe easier because of the hard work done by the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale. With the help of the Ontario Lung Association, he has been a crucial part of the establishment of the new Ontario lung health consultation group.

This group will consist of health experts, persons with lived experience, caregivers, advocates and more, and they’ll provide my ministry with advice and recommendations on research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of lung disease and for the development of an Ontario lung health action plan. Through this collaboration, I’m confident that we’ll be successful in protecting and caring for the millions of Ontarians who live with a lung disease.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thanks very much, Minister. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute to acknowledge with gratitude the member from Cambridge, who spearheaded this initiative.

I know that this group will create a plan that will ensure we are providing a coordinated approach to prevent lung disease, improve patient outcomes and reduce health care spending. Our government recognizes that those who live with chronic lung disease have real challenges, as well as their families, who rightfully deserve a plan that will ensure less people suffer the loss of a loved one to lung disease. We’re confident that this group will help to achieve just that, working with our wonderful partners from the Ontario Lung Association.

Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please share with us what else this government is doing to promote lung health in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again to the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale for that question. This summer, in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario, we launched a new screening pilot for people at risk of getting lung cancer. The pilot ensures that we’re doing our best to organize lung cancer screening for people at high risk across this province. In fact, the pilot sites are based out of the Ottawa Hospital, the Renfrew Victoria Hospital, Health Sciences North in Sudbury and Lakeridge Health in Oshawa.

We also have a number of existing programs that address COPD or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and other lung diseases. Of course, we’ll also, starting January 1, be providing absolutely free asthma inhalers, those puffers of steroids and Ventolin, to children and youth through OHIP+. I’m confident, with the member’s continued advocacy and the member from Cambridge and our partnership with the lung association, that we’ll be able to achieve much, much more for the lung health of Ontarians.

Child care

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the finance minister. Earlier this week, Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown announced an important plank in the People’s Guarantee. He announced that an Ontario Progressive Conservative government will introduce a new Ontario child care refund for up to 75% of child care expenses or up to $6,750 per child. That is real change—real change that would make life affordable for Ontario families.

Can the minister explain why he doesn’t support much-needed relief—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Etobicoke North is warned.

You may finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m fine.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question.

Of course, we all want relief for Ontario families. The member opposite and her party are not doing that. It’s quoted time and time again this week that their plan doesn’t add up, and that’s coming from their own expert advisers. The fine print on the last page of their report makes it clear that they have $12 billion in cuts, and the question remains: What are you going to cut? Which hospitals are you going to cut?

I recall that there was another five-point plan from Mike Harris. Where did that take him? Well, let me see: His five-point plan said he would not negatively impact classroom education; we know he created a crisis. He said he would not close down hospitals; instead, he closed down dozens of hospitals, fired nurses and brought the system to its knees. What are you guys going to cut?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got to do my job. Stop the clock.

I am going to remind—it’s delicate. I do want in the House everyone to use their title or their riding, and I’m going to suggest that you indicate your leader and then his name, please.

Carry on.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We’re going to cut an economic development minister who lost 330,000 manufacturing jobs. We’re going to cut a Minister of Infrastructure who doesn’t know how to roll out infrastructure. We’re going to cut a Minister of Health who lets patients stay on hospital floors. We’re going to cut a Deputy Premier who allowed the longest college strike in Ontario history. We’re going to cut a finance minister who had to save his own seat by cancelling $1.2 billion in gas plants. We’re going to cut a Treasury Board president who has to fight with the Auditor General all the time. We’re going to cut a transportation minister who built an upside down bridge.

Interjections.

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

First, when I stand, you sit. Second, the Minister of Agriculture is warned. Thank you.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Here’s what I suspect they’re going to cut, because they voted against these very measures in the past: They’re going to cut OSAP and free tuition for students. They’re going to cut OHIP+, free pharmacare for those under 25. They’re going to cut $16 billion in infrastructure to schools this year alone, $20 billion for hospitals, $190 billion over the next 13 years for roads and bridges, and the list goes on, because they voted against these very measures.

Furthermore, the National Post, another favourite of theirs, says it’s all a shell game for middle-class-income earners. They’re going to have an 81% increase in gas taxes for the people of Ontario, costing them more money.

Furthermore, they’re going to go into deficit. They can’t even balance their books when they’re making all these cuts and all these revenue increases. It’s fiscally irresponsible, and a social deficit as much as the fiscal deficit that they’re providing.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Consumer protection

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question to the Acting Premier: With Bill 166, this Liberal government told the public that they wanted to protect fans who bought tickets to concerts and sporting events. One of the ways this government can protect fans is by revealing how many tickets actually go on sale to the public and how many are just giveaways to VIPs or just resold at higher prices. If venues publish this information, then consumers would know when they are being gouged.

During the debate on Bill 166, the Attorney General said, “99% were in favour of at least some additional transparency requirements,” yet last week, we found out that the Liberals removed that

section of the consumer protection from their own bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Premier tell Ontarians: Who pressured the Premier to abandon protecting consumers who just want to buy tickets to concerts and sporting events?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for asking a very important question. Speaker, as you know, we have brought in a piece of legislation that is working through this House and really will ensure that we put fans first when it comes to sporting events, concerts etc. We have heard very clearly from Ontarians that they want to ensure that they get tickets at an affordable price and that they have a fair shot at getting tickets. That’s why the proposals before this House would put a ban on these computer bots and would ensure that people will not be able to sell tickets that were bought by bots.

We’re also taking the financial incentive away from bots by making sure that we’re putting a cap of 50% on resale prices so that Ontarians do have access to affordable tickets.

There are very robust enforcement measures and transparency requirements that I will speak to in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Again to the Acting Premier: We’ve heard numerous complaints that venues are holding back a massive amount of tickets, which means that only a small fraction ever go on sale at face value. That means that when parents save enough money to take their kids to a Jays game, an Argos game or a Leafs game, they only have a small opportunity to buy tickets at a fair price. Most times, they have to choose between paying highly inflated prices for tickets from scalpers or letting their kids down.

This Liberal government says that it’s committed to transparency and protecting consumers who want to see shows or attend sporting events. If that’s the case, why are the Liberals backtracking on this important issue of consumer protection and letting down those people who just want to take their kids and their grandkids to sporting events?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m really happy to hear that the member opposite is interested in this issue that we have shown leadership in addressing.

Transparency is a very big part of it. In fact, one of the big things we’re doing in this legislation is that we’re ensuring there’s all-in pricing, so that consumers—fans—know exactly what they are paying for.

We also talked to a lot of artists. We wanted to make sure there were no unintended consequences to this legislation. The amendment that we have proposed deals exactly with that. We want to make sure that we have a robust arts and culture scene all across Ontario, not just in Toronto. One of the concerns that was raised to us, which is legitimate, was that some of the requirements that were initially proposed may result in artists not coming to smaller regional markets like Niagara—the member’s riding—or Ottawa, Kingston or Windsor.

We want to make sure that our arts and culture community is thriving in all parts of the province, that these big acts come to our smaller markets and that our rules don’t cause a detriment.

Affordable housing

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Our government has been running a $20-million pilot in 22 communities across the province to increase affordable housing options for survivors of domestic violence and their families. The portable housing benefit provides families with the freedom to choose where they live since the subsidy isn’t tied to a specific unit, like most rent-geared-to-income housing.

The two-year pilot project for the portable housing benefit was launched in September 2016 in 22 regions throughout Ontario. The portable housing benefit has been an important program for helping survivors find stability and housing. Could the minister update the House on the announcement that he made yesterday?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the member from Barrie for the question and also for her advocacy on behalf of vulnerable Ontarians.

We’ve been doing very important work to help survivors and their families escape violence by providing them with a flexible, portable housing benefit. That’s why I was happy to announce yesterday that after a successful pilot, we’re expanding the portable housing benefit right across Ontario.

We will be expanding the program to include victims of human trafficking. I was also happy to announce that these survivors of human trafficking will receive special priority access to social housing, as victims of domestic violence do now.

We’re dedicated to making this program better to provide easier access to make it more inclusive. This expanded benefit is providing $30 million over three years to support 3,000 survivors and will increase to $50 million a year in 2020. It’s going to provide housing when and where—

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Again to the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy: Earlier this year, the Ministry of Housing introduced its new Fair Housing Plan. This plan includes 16 comprehensive measures to help Ontarians find a safe, suitable and affordable place to call home. The plan is helping people find affordable homes, increase supply, protect buyers and renters, and bring stability to the real estate market.

I understand that the minister made an announcement this morning about the Fair Housing Plan and how he is working to encourage the creation of new, purpose-built rental in Ontario. Could the minister please update the House on this announcement?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I was very pleased to be able to announce this morning a key part of our Fair Housing Plan. In some places in this province, it’s very hard to find suitable affordable housing, especially for those who want to rent. We’re seeing condo buildings pop up on every corner, but not quite so many rental developments are being built.

This morning I was pleased to announce that Ontario is making it easier for people to find a place to call home by helping incentivize the construction of more rental housing in communities where many people rent, but rentals are hard to find. We will encourage developers to build new rental housing by rebating development charges.

We’ll continue to work on ways to increase the supply of housing in Ontario. This builds on the other initiatives in our Fair Housing Plan that are creating more rental housing and more affordable housing across the province.

Victims of crime

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Attorney General. Victim Services of Renfrew County does a tremendous job in assisting and working with victims of crime to help them through their terrible circumstances. But we have a problem here, Minister. Legislative changes that have vastly increased their workload by over 700%, coupled with the fact that they’ve had no meaningful funding increase in the past five years, put them on the brink of being unable to provide the services so badly needed in Renfrew county and, indeed, all across Ontario.

I have written to the minister about this in the past and have made it clear that without an increase in funding, victims of crimes are at a greater risk than ever before. Will the minister commit to funding victim services to the level necessary to comply with the mandate that he has given them?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member opposite for asking the question. He has written to me and he has spoken to me about this very important issue as well.

I want to be very clear that our government is very much committed to helping victims of crime when they need it most. Since 2003, the Ministry of the Attorney General has invested over $1 billio