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

October 7, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-07 (PDF)

L106 - Wed 7 Oct 2015 / Mer 7 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 October 2015 Mercredi 7 octobre 2015

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Health care

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

International trade agreement

Winter highway maintenance

International trade agreement

Northern highway improvement

Student safety

Executive compensation

Condominium legislation

Water extraction

Pension plans

Senior citizens

By-election in Sudbury

Deferred Votes

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

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Forest industry

Community Living Elgin

Bowmanville Applefest

Privatization of public assets

Bear control

Post-secondary education

Carp Farmers’ Market

Community policing

Threads of Life

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Pathways to Post-secondary Excellence Act (Post-secondary Educational Report), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les voies de l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire (rapport sur l’enseignement postsecondaire)

Business Corporations Amendment Act (Meetings of Shareholders and Executive Compensation), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés par actions (assemblées des actionnaires et rétribution des membres de la direction)

Motions

Estimates

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Peace Officers’ Memorial Run

Petitions

Hospital services

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Volunteer firefighters

Dental care

Soins palliatifs

Tenant protection

Employment practices

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 6, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1998, to enact the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 and to amend other Acts with respect to condominiums / Projet de loi 106, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums, édictant la Loi de 2015 sur les services de gestion de condominiums et modifiant d’autres lois en ce qui concerne les condominiums.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last discussed this bill, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin had completed his speech. We are now on questions and comments.

Mr. Chris Ballard: It gives me great pleasure to respond to our friend from Algoma–Manitoulin with regard to this bill. He made a number of very important points. It was interesting to hear his comments about his community and there not being too many condominiums.

I come from north of Toronto, a small community called Newmarket and Aurora, and over the past 10, 15 years we’ve seen a tremendous growth in condominiums, especially as our communities have filled the remaining green space with more typical homes that you would find in an urban setting.

Really, the only way to grow in our communities is up, so over the last 10, 15 years we’ve seen a number of mid-rise condominiums go in—six, eight stories. In Newmarket, they’re looking at going even higher. It’s a somewhat new built form in our community and it’s one that, coming from a municipal background, we’ve had to adjust to.

As a municipal councillor, I was always one of the first who new condo owners would call when they had issues with their developer or with their condo board or whatever. The tools that we had to help them with their issues oftentimes were limited, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to see that this bill will be addressing some very important facts like licensing condo managers, improving governance and oversight of condo boards, and providing a relatively inexpensive way for owners and boards to resolve some of the disputes they have without going a more expensive way, that of going to court.

I look forward to seeing this bill move into committee and listening to what the parties opposite can bring forward in ways of improving it. I thank everyone for their support.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I do want to speak about the perspective of the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. Of course, he and I are both northern boys and we do take a different look at this. While we look forward, as you just said, to having this bill come to committee, one of the things we’ll talk about, in terms of this condo act, are the differences in the requirements of heavily populated urban centres versus the north.

We do have condominiums in the north. Some are small, and some just won’t be able to quite match up with the new rules and regulations that are contemplated in this, such as the designing of a website to have access. There are a lot of places in northern Ontario, quite frankly, where we don’t even have dial-up website and access. It’s just the reality. When I drive in my riding from North Bay to Mattawa, there’s a good chunk of the area where we don’t have service. It’s just the reality of living in two-thirds the size of the population.

So there are certain respects, I’ve said quite frequently in this Legislature, where it cannot be cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all. As long as the acknowledgment is there that we really do need a separate set of guidelines that pertain to northern Ontario—you can’t always have a Toronto-centric solution to a Toronto problem, because it does spill over and ties in the rest of the province with these issues.

So with respect to the condo owners in my community of North Bay and some of the smaller communities—I have 10 mayors that I serve in my area, 10 different municipalities. Some are as small as 200 or 300 people; they have a mayor. When you look at the rules that are set up for condos, they cannot be that onerous on these smaller communities.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I was really delighted to be in the House yesterday, listening to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I wanted to compliment him on his rendition of Rosario Marchese. It was very entertaining to watch a Frenchman channel an Italian. I have to say it was very good.

The member talked about how there are not a lot of condo complexes in northern Ontario; people purchase single-family homes. I compared that to maybe what’s happening in Toronto and what’s happening in London, because we do have a lot of condo buildings: We have high-rises, and we have townhomes. As people are aging, they look for alternative dwellings. A lot of seniors may not be able to cut the lawn and shovel the driveway or do those repairs outside that maybe they could do when they were younger. Having a condo option really alleviates some of that.

I’d be interested to see, as the years progress, if the northern areas of Ontario accommodate some of those needs for seniors. Seniors usually want to stay in the neighbourhood or the area they raised their kids in; they don’t want to move far away from family, and I understand that northern ridings are huge and vast. So, talking about regional differences, this bill should acknowledge that there are regional differences in Ontario, and when bills are developed, we should keep in mind that other parts of Ontario have needs as well.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s sad to hear someone say that this is a Toronto problem. I mean, there are 1.3 million Ontarians who live in condos. Condos are in every riding of this province. The people who live in condos come from all over Ontario. They are people from all walks of life and from every community. They come to work and live in different cities of Ontario. And 300,000 people are employed in this industry building condos.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Barrie.

Mr. Mike Colle: Three hundred thousand people work in this industry. It’s critically important that we take this on and not say it’s a Toronto problem. It’s an Ontario situation that needs addressing. It needs some new legislation to protect the 1.3 million Ontarians who call these condos home. How basic can you get? It’s our job. We can’t let these 1.3 million people live in a situation where there’s obviously—and there have been many suggestions. There has been all kinds of important input from Rosario Marchese, from Tracy MacCharles—18 months of consultations.

Everybody agrees that we’ve got to do things for the betterment of the people of Ontario who call these condos home. That’s the reality. They’re not just in Toronto. That’s why we need to do something to help these people who are asking for dispute resolution. They’re asking for rules; they’re asking to protect their lifetime investment. To ignore that lifetime investment is just stupid, as far as I’m concerned.

We have a duty to do this. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we’ll probably do, I think, in this term—1.3 million people. We’ve got to get the job done and not say it’s a Toronto problem—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin has two minutes.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank the members from Newmarket–Aurora, Nipissing, London–Fanshawe and, the last speaker, Eglinton–Lawrence. It’s unfortunate; I thought you were here when I delivered my comments yesterday, because the points that you just raised are exactly the points that I had spoken about. It’s not just a home; it’s the dream of having that home: That’s where I’m going to live. That’s where I’m going to be raising my family. So when I’m putting my hopes and my dreams into a goal that I’m looking forward to, I want to make sure that those are there and that the mechanisms to address those problems are actually there.

The member from Nipissing brought up a really interesting point. We’re not saying that northern Ontario is different. We’re not saying that it’s better; we’re not saying that it’s worse. We’re asking the government to recognize the challenges that are there, and they are unique. There are different issues. I always use this example when I’m talking to my constituents back home. When we see policy coming from this government, I refer to it as the white paintbrush syndrome. You cannot paint the entire province with a white paintbrush and think that it’s going to fix everything.

You have to recognize that there are dynamics, there are different areas, there are different challenges throughout this province. My comments that I made during the time that I spoke yesterday were that I look forward to having the opportunity to explain those when this goes to committee.

I give a lot of credit to the individual who is quite knowledgeable about this, who has been speaking about this for the last eight or 10 years, one named Rosario Marchese. I’m sure my friend from Eglinton–Lawrence was here, just across the way from him, as he spoke so passionately about this issue. To you, my friend, as Rosie would say, we’ll do it together. We’ll do it together. And to you, Mr. Speaker, God bless.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. And to you, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, you will talk to me, not the other member.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: I was here in 1998 when the first condo act was brought forward. I know that at that time, a lot of work went into it. It was over two years of work that was brought in by the previous government. I’m quite aware of how complex and important this legislation is. At that time, we tried to do the best we could to protect Ontarians who invest in these homes. The number of deputations we had, the experts, the citizens who came forward trying to improve the legislation—it was quite commendable.

That’s why, going forward now, I think we all have to appreciate how incredibly complex the condo act is. It really takes incredibly convoluted legal matters, real estate issues, property standards issues, municipal issues—and it affects so many people. That is why it’s so critical that we take time to do this right.

It is very important to look at the long range here. This act will have to undergo all kinds tests, because it is going to be very, very difficult to solve all of these problems. As the member from Newmarket–Aurora was telling me, his elderly aunt, who bought a condo years ago on the shore of the Humber River, has a great penthouse condo, but now that condo is under mortgage watch. The reason for that, like a number of condos that may be under mortgage watch, is because of the fact that a lot of people who buy condos really abhor the condo fees.

They get assessed certain fees if the parking garage deteriorates, the swimming pool has to be fixed, the roof leaks. What happens is that it’s a natural tendency for people to say, “Well, I don’t want to pay more this month and have this increased assessment.” So they kept on putting off these repairs. Subsequently, you get in a situation where now there are major, major repairs, to the point that some condos cannot be sold because people can’t get a mortgage for them. So it is very serious.

I had a condo on Dufferin Street in my area just last year. It was one of the first condos in Ontario. The people living there have been living there since the 1970s, when it was built. Because they’re elderly and they’re living on fixed incomes, they’ve tended to put off maintenance. So this year they got hit with a huge maintenance fee: upkeep, the garage, the front entranceway, the roof. So a lot of them came to me, saying, “We can’t afford to pay this huge new assessment. Would you talk with the property manager?”

In fact, the property manager happens to be an old football player of mine, Tony Seljak, who happens to be in the property management business. He said, “Listen, I’ll do what I can. We’ll work out a payment system. But the roof and the garage have got to be fixed.” That’s the reality of what happens, and that’s just one small part of this act.

There are so many parts that affect—as I said, the city of Toronto, for instance, or the city of Mississauga or the city of Brampton all come into play with this. Right now there is a major lawsuit against the city of Toronto over the Condominium Act, and that is the result of the fact that people living in condominiums pay very high taxes. They say, “Why should we be paying more taxes than, or as many taxes as, people living in a detached home and then we don’t get snow clearance, we don’t get these potholes filled in our parking lot?

Therefore, the city should also come and clear our snow on private property because we’re paying taxes for that equal to the other people.” It’s a very interesting case. It’s before the courts right now. It will be interesting what the decision is, because it could affect people and municipalities right across this province in terms of the relationship with condominiums. So there’s another example of the complexity of all of these.

The bill itself tries to deal with 2,200 recommendations. She’s not here right now, but the Minister of Children and Youth Services and women’s issues spent a couple of years trying to listen to people and work with various groups, trying to come up with this act. As I said, it has been going on for years, trying to get the fundamentals of this act together. She should be given an award for patience and for the good work that she did. She is never mentioned, but she did a lot of work, as she does in a lot areas. So there are a lot of people who have shown an interest in this.

It is critical that we understand that there is no silver bullet in fixing this form of home ownership. It is extremely, as I said, legalistic. Most lawyers who deal with real estate have no idea about the condo act.

Interjection: Here she is.

Mr. Mike Colle: Speaking of the minister, she is here now.

Anyway, when you buy a condo, there are so many things to be aware of. You’re going to be living with a couple hundred, 300, 400 people.

There is a new building going up on Yonge Street in Toronto that has 99 storeys. Can you imagine living in that building and all agreeing on paying assessment fees, on paying condo fees? It’s pretty challenging getting everybody to agree. But I think we all agree that we’ve got a good foundation here. Everybody has come up with some good suggestions.

I think we’ve got to go forward, and it is important at this time that we bring in all of the experts, all of the stakeholders to bring forward their ideas on how to improve this bill. We’ve got to open up to the public this discussion on making this act a good one. We’ve got to bring the public in as soon as we can.

Therefore, at this time, Mr. Speaker, we need to refer this to committee as soon as possible. Bring in the public. As a result, I move that the question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order.

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Speaker, in case you didn’t hear me: I move that the question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence has moved that the question now be put. I’m personally satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow the question to be put to the House. Shall the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be taken during deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 1, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à renforcer et à améliorer la gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant diverses lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. I will be sharing my time this morning with the distinguished members from York South–Weston, Barrie and Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Todd Smith: Sounds like a roll call.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It is a roll call, I heard my friend from Prince Edward–Hastings telling me. But it’s interesting, there will be no more roll calls for the Belleville Bulls this season since they’ve moved to your very distinguished city of Hamilton, Mr. Speaker.

In the members’ east gallery today I’d like to welcome some distinguished leaders from Glengarry, Prescott and Russell, because this is Glengarry–Prescott–Russell day here at Queen’s Park. Please stand up. There we go.

I want to say good morning to everybody in the great riding of Peterborough. I know they’re waking up and tuning in to Cogeco station 95. I welcome them this morning.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’ve been awake for hours. People in Peterborough don’t sleep in until 9:30.

Hon. Jeff Leal: They’ve already got half their day in, so they’re just switching to 95.

Interjection.

Hon. Jeff Leal: They are. They’re enjoying their Egg McMuffins.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve to get going here on Bill 85. One of the most important aspects of Bill 85—I’m sure this is shared in common for members of all sides—are the changes we’re going to make to the family responsibility act.

Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that many of us at our offices have individuals who come in on a very frequent basis to talk about the challenges that they have under the family responsibility act, or with the Family Responsibility Office, particularly when it comes to support payments for individuals. It’s always a very sad situation when you have a matrimonial breakup. It’s very difficult on all parties involved, particularly for children. So there are significant provisions in this act today, Bill 85, that will allow us to handle the FRO payments in a much more efficient way.

It will allow for much better tracking of the FRO process. It will also make sure that when Family Court judges make decisions in terms of support for children, those decisions are indeed enacted to provide that vital support that is needed by families when they find themselves in very difficult positions.

Mr. Speaker, there are also amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 2006. These amendments were asked for particularly by the Toronto Transit Commission to allow them to expand service to York region and neighbouring municipalities by adjusting provisions of the act.

This is a very important amendment today to allow us to facilitate the Big Move forward, which is a very ambitious plan in the greater Toronto-Hamilton area to provide that transit in a wide variety of means, whether it’s subways, whether it’s buses or whether it’s light rail, to make sure that various areas are solved. These amendments here today will allow us to facilitate the important planning that needs to be done by Metrolinx into areas outside of the city of Toronto border. So this is a very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, something that you’ll also be very interested in, as a former city councillor in Hamilton: It’s about to improve the administration of the Provincial Offences Act. You well know, as a former municipal leader in Hamilton, part of the Who Does What exercise at the end of the 1990s—I know we, in Peterborough, gave that a new name; it was the “who got done in” committee. I know my municipal leaders from every part of Ontario certainly reflected on that new name that we gave to that exercise, the “who got done in” committee. There was universal support of how we renamed the famous Who Does What committee of the late 1990s.

To give credit where credit is due—and I’m a very fair individual—under the Provincial Offences Act, part of that exercise was to make sure that municipalities were given the revenue that would be generated under the Provincial Offences Act, namely, quite commonly, our parking tickets. I know I’ve received my share of parking tickets in the city of Peterborough and went to the POA office in Peterborough to pay the appropriate fine. One of the provisions of Bill 85 is to allow more technology to be used in processing these tickets.

Ultimately, that will allow us and municipalities to get that revenue that was part of that agreement that was negotiated between the then government in power, AMO and the municipalities right across the province of Ontario.

This act also has a number of other provisions that I think are very important. I know many of us who had the privilege of serving in municipal government, particularly with EMS services—these operators that have non-emergency stretcher transportation, some of those vehicles that were used for this particular activity were not in very good shape. So we’re bringing in new requirements to make sure that they have the same standards that EMS vehicles have right across the province of Ontario.

With that, I will cede the floor to my other colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to the Strengthening and Improving Government Act,

an act that aims to make government more efficient and more effective, I would say. If passed, this bill will strengthen and update existing legislation—15 different pieces of legislation, to be exact. These changes will make it easier for families and for businesses by improving and modernizing some government processes.

I’ve been following much of the debate that has been taking place on Bill 85. Many of my colleagues have highlighted the most important items contained in this bill; for example, proposed amendments to the Family Law Act, which would require every person whose income is used as part of a child support order to provide the other parent with updated financial and contact information on an annual basis. In other words, this would make sure that children get what they need, what they’re entitled to, in terms of child support.

Ms. Soo Wong: That’s right. It’s a good thing.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Yes, it’s a very good thing. Many families have issues with that. It just streamlines it for people who are in that situation.

Other amendments that are contained in this bill: the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act on stretcher transportation services. This aims to improve the safety and reliability of private sector non-emergency stretcher transportation services in Ontario. I know that many of my colleagues have spoken about this initiative that is part of the bill. In other words, these amendments will make sure that vehicles would need to meet specific requirements, contain prescribed equipment, and meet inspection and maintenance standards. Drivers and attendants would also be required to meet these minimum standards.

This is really important because it would regulate the sector that, right now, is not safe enough and needs more oversight.

Another initiative contained in this bill are the amendments to the City of Toronto Act. This will help make it easier for the Toronto Transit Commission to expand service to York region and other neighbouring municipalities by adjusting provisions in the act. This will allow for greater transit collaboration between transit agencies across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Why is that important? Because I think that few people today have the fortune of working close to their home. In the riding that I have the privilege to represent, York South–Weston, for example, through the years industry has been disappearing. This has been happening in all the major urban centres, so people’s jobs are farther away. I have residents who work in the city of Vaughan. They work in Richmond Hill. They work in Mississauga. They work in Brampton.

Industries that at one time were a vital part of the riding—I can name Kodak; I can name CCM, which used to manufacture bicycles; the Moffat stove factory—they are all gone. Some have stayed, such as Irving Tissue, which is still one of the main employers in my area, but the majority of them have moved away.

So people need to go to where the jobs are, and therefore need better transit. That’s why our government is investing in transit, but that’s why we also need to make it easier for municipalities.

Because of the number of amendments that are included in this bill and because it does aim at modernizing what we do here in government, I will be supporting this bill, and I hope that everyone else will; I think I’ve heard consensus amongst all our colleagues. We want to get this bill passed, so that we can help individuals, families and businesses in our province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Speaker. Good morning. I believe that this bill, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, is very important. It covers a lot of issues. In particular, the one that I hear constantly in my constituency office is about the Family Responsibility Office and the difficulty with young families, whether it be a single mother or a single father, trying to get the money that has been set aside every month for their children’s upbringing. I think that this bill hopefully will help get that done much more quickly. I think that is the good thing to do.

Children should not suffer because mom and dad are having difficulty dealing with each other. They shouldn’t be hurt in this whole situation. It’s bad enough that they are now in a broken family.

The Strengthening and Improving Government Act includes a number of small but important measures that will improve the efficiency and the responsiveness of government. We are looking at many aspects of government, trying to modernize processes and make systems easier to manage. To meet the needs of Ontarians, these public services require a solid foundation. We are taking action through this act to strengthen and update existing legislation.

There are amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, particularly about stretcher transportation services. The government is taking action to improve the safety and reliability of private sector non-emergency stretcher transportation services in Ontario.

As I said, proposed changes to the Family Law Act will help ensure that the new administrative child support service is as effective as possible in assisting children to receive appropriate levels of financial support from their parents. Quite frankly, as parents, we should be looking after our children.

Amendments to the Courts of Justice Act: These proposed changes will help to effectively implement new federal family legislation in Ontario.

Amendments to the City of Toronto Act: The proposed change will help make it easier for the Toronto Transit Commission to expand service to York region. I know my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora is happy for that, and other neighbouring municipalities will benefit from adjusting provisions in this act. This will allow for greater transit collaboration between transit agencies across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. I know, Speaker, you’ll like that.

Why are we making these changes now? We’re always looking at the many aspects of government, trying to modernize processes and make systems easier to navigate. While some of these proposed amendments were part of the previous strengthening-and-improving-government bill, we also found new ways to make improvements through our ongoing review processes.

Our goal is to meet the needs of Ontarians, and public services require a solid foundation. We’re taking action through this act to strengthen and update, as I said, existing legislation. This is not new legislation; it’s improving previous legislation. I really think that all of the aspects of this bill, including the amendment about making provincial offences documents electronic—these amendments do not have cost implications. They clear the way legally for Provincial Offences Act courts to manage cases more efficiently. We all want that to happen; we know how those things can get dragged down.

Municipalities run most of the Provincial Offences Act courts and so would bear any costs of additional modernization they choose to implement.

It will be necessary to make minor amendments to regulations to align this

section of the Provincial Offences Act numbering, ensuring consistent language and making other minor housekeeping amendments in consultation with the municipal stakeholders. The six-month time period will allow these steps to occur.

I urge you to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s interesting that some of the members from the opposition are somewhat shocked that we, as members, are happy to stand up and speak on this wonderful bill.

I would like to start by maybe giving a little bit of history about the background as to what happened, because some people may say, “What happened on December 11, 2013?” The Minister of Government Services introduced Bill 151, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. That bill included changes to five pieces of legislation. In May 2014, as most Ontarians know, the bill died on the order paper.

Before we introduced this very important piece of legislation, ministries were asked to submit additional items that were non-contentious but did require policy approval and that would have a most positive impact for stakeholders by improving the efficiencies and the responsiveness of our government.

I’m very happy, actually, to share my voice with my colleagues this morning in talking about the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. I would like to say that I know some of my colleagues have talked about what happened with our new families, the reality of our society. Sometimes, in my office in Ottawa–Orléans—and one of my staff members always, every Friday, when I come back to the office, says, “You know, Marie-France, we need to look at FRO. This is a situation where it has to be dealt with.” I’m very happy that one of the components of this bill is actually about this, right?

When you look at the change and structure of family members, a child should not be penalized for a decision that parents make. Certainly I think it’s an important aspect of our bill and a much-needed aspect of what can make a real difference for the people and the children who are going through those realities.

By updating and amending the Family Law Act, like I said, it helps the situation that these children are going through. This is an important piece that I wanted to highlight. I’m sure that Nathalie, who is in my office, will be happy that, if passed, this bill will help those children and those families in Ottawa–Orléans, in my neck of the woods, but I’m sure in some other ridings of my colleagues here in the House.

Another component—I’m not sure if people have talked about it, but I just want to highlight it. As a former business owner, something we take very seriously is the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Seriously, the worst thing for an employer is when their workers get injured. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this is something that the government is taking very seriously. This particular bill will actually help improve workers’ health and safety. Employers and workers will have access to a broader range of information about hazardous workplace chemicals.

Everything that is currently in place will not change, but I want to highlight, and I only have a few seconds, that what will be most important is that there will be a portion where the employer will be required to identify chemicals and that the safety data sheet shows the chemicals in the workplace. But now the education component will have to be part of the employer’s work.

Mr. Speaker, I need to end, and I wish I had a little bit more time, but certainly this is an important piece of legislation, and I hope that all members will agree with me.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: I would blame the member for Peterborough; he took your time. That’s why you didn’t have enough time to continue speaking this morning.

Do you know what? The name of this bill is like putting it on a tee for the opposition parties. What is it called again? It’s called the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. If there is one thing we know, this government needs to improve. That’s for sure. It’s like putting it on a tee. You don’t need a pitcher and a catcher when you’re talking about strengthening and improving the things that this government is doing.

Every summer I go to this event called the Sand Lake Summit. We have a great bunch of guys who go up there every August to Ted and Ron Reid’s cottage on Sand Lake. It’s a beautiful lake in Frontenac township. John, Darrell, Chuck, Chris, Mike, Todd and Trevor are all there. We sit down and discuss all the problems that are going on in Ontario and the problems that are going on in the world. This is just a beautiful setting. There are cottages all around us. All the bigwigs have cottages. I can’t afford a cottage, but I go up to Sand Lake and enjoy looking at the cottages.

Gaylord Hardwood Flooring has a beautiful cottage there. They, of course, specialize in hardwood and click flooring and tongue-and-groove.

We talk about all of the things that are wrong in the province of Ontario right now, and we sort out some of the ways we can fix it. The biggest problem facing Ontario: Electricity rates are through the roof, making us a less desirable place for people to come and set up their company and do business. This is the red tape capital of Canada. It’s the red tape capital of North America. They’re driving people out of the province because of the cumbersome bureaucracy you face when you come here. Taxation: Every time this government has an opportunity to raise taxes and make it more difficult to locate and expand and build jobs, these guys are doing it.

Let’s fix electricity. Let’s fix red tape. Let’s fix the taxation in Ontario and get it right.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m inclined to agree with my colleague.

Interjections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, really; that comes as a surprise to you guys. That you would take time in this Legislature to present a bill that essentially is housekeeping, that could have been done through regulation—why are you dragging your feet on some of the most important issues that our communities face? Lobby your own government, lobby your ministers and lobby your caucus to get to the table with issues and policies that actually affect our communities. Skyrocketing hydro rates: If your phones aren’t burning up in your constituency offices, or melting, then you’re not listening to the people out there.

They are having an incredible time making ends meet—just on the hydro file alone, let alone the fact that people can’t find good-paying jobs in this country, and in this province especially. You have done absolutely nothing. But what do we get? We get an omnibus, innocuous bill that does nothing, that could have been taken care of through a budget bill, but you decided to just pad some sort of, you know—whatever it is. I haven’t really seen anything like this in a long time. It begs the question: What are you doing? Have you run out of steam? Do you not have any new ideas?

Do you not have any inclination to support the communities that we represent? What does this do? What does it do? You have to give your heads a shake. My goodness.

The Clerks at the table must be thinking, “Is this the best they can come up with? Do we not have other priorities to deal with in this House?”

Interjections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s nice to see the government so lively now. You have got so many words you want to shout at me and heckle me with, but put them into some legislation. If you’ve got so much passion, do something substantive and make a difference in this province. This is nothing. You know it. You’ll stand up and you’ll read your lines that have been written for you but, really, realistically, there’s not much coming out of that government.

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

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s certainly a pleasure to be able to make some comments regarding those that were just previously made by the member from Essex and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, but I would be remiss if I didn’t follow up on the Minister of Agriculture’s—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. The yelling stops. The cross-discussion stops. It goes to the Chair. I’m almost at my limit. I’ve let a lot go this morning.

Continue.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, I would be remiss if I didn’t welcome members from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell here. From the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, I have Mayor François St. Amour from the municipality of The Nation. We’ve got the mayor of Russell township, Pierre Leroux; we’ve got Jean Leduc, the CAO of Russell township; and Dominique Tremblay, who is the chief planner. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’m sure they’re very entertained.

I want to go back to what the member from Prince Edward–Hastings had talked about. He said this is a bill about improving, or not improving. Well, we just spent two and a half years in a minority government prior to June 12 of last year and we couldn’t get anything done in this House. The bells rang constantly.

Anyway, we went to the polls, the people of Ontario actually made a decision and they chose our government again, in a majority. We’re going to improve some of the legislation. I think it’s incumbent upon us as a government to take a look at pieces of legislation that are outdated, probably put in by the Conservative Party when they were in power for too long.

The member from Essex, he’s talking about regulation as opposed to legislation. These are bills and they have to be amended through the legislative process, so I’m very pleased that this bill has come forward. I think it’s necessary. It’s going to make it easier for families across the province and in my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. It’s going to amend 15 acts. One of them in particular which is of concern to me is the Family Law Act, through the Ministry of the Attorney General. It’s going to help to determine child support payments in the future, so I think that’s a good step forward. Thank you very much for the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have to agree with my colleague here, the member of the third party. Have they not got anything better to do? You look at this bill, and it’s a caretaker at best. Things could have been done through regulation. I look at the bill—and we’re going to committee this afternoon—to stop using coal in hydroelectric plants. The bill was introduced after we quit using coal in all plants in Ontario. I mean, this government is—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Barrie and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Mr. Jim McDonell: —having a hard time coming up with any more ideas.

Meanwhile, the phone in my office is ringing off the hook with problems in this province. Hydro bills: Did they not notice, when they went to rural Ontario, people were turning their backs on their float? They were being polite, they weren’t booing. That’s what people in this province are thinking.

The member opposite talked about the minority government. The minority government allowed us to get at some of the scandals this government has put upon itself. Ornge, the gas plants; all of that would never come out if it wasn’t for the minority government, and they quickly squashed everything they could afterward.

This is a government that talks transparency but does not want to see transparency because it’s embarrassing for them. There are people that literally should be in jail, but they have the power of the majority, the power of this government, to squash those, and they’ve done that. We see in committees where questions come up trying to get information, and those questions are squashed.

Really, writing about better government—it’s far too long. This government should start looking at itself and try to figure out how they can actually improve this system, get our taxes down, get our hydro rates reasonable and stop wondering why business is leaving. It’s very obvious: regulation. The cost of doing business in this province is no longer competitive. We’re somewhat worried about the new trade agreement because we’re not competitive.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from York South–Weston has two minutes.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I want to thank all the members who have contributed and added their comments to the Strengthening and Improving Government Act: the members for Prince Edward–Hastings, Essex, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

We’re the number one province for foreign direct investment, and that should mean something. The bill is about small changes, but sometimes small changes are the ones that make the most difference in a person’s life. Legislation needs to be updated. Sometimes we complain that things are not brought forward to the Legislature. Well, we are bringing amendments to 15 different bills with Bill 85. Members should be welcoming that. I want to say that we have to respect the legislative process, and this is what we’re doing.

To the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry I want to say that I went this year, as I do every year, to the International Plowing Match in Finch. We had a great reception—such warm people, very welcoming. It was great to speak to everyone who was there. I really enjoyed it, and so did many of my colleagues who were there—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. I’m not going to point out anyone in particular, but there are a couple of loud discussions going on. If you want to have a debate, go outside and have a debate. Thank you.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the changes that are in this bill will help individuals, will help families, will help businesses in our province.

This is a great province. It is very diverse. It’s great that we are so different, and yet we have so much in common. That’s what we have to highlight: the things that we have in common and how to improve, how to strengthen the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning. I came in here this morning fully prepared. I had painstakingly prepared a speech on Bill 106, the condo act. I went to a great deal of effort to research the facts and have my comments written and prepared, and of course, I was unable to deliver my address on Bill 106, because the first thing that happened this morning was that as soon as the government had the opportunity, they had their designated guillotine operator here come and lower the boom—the hammer, the guillotine—and crush debate on Bill 106.

Because in the government’s mind, well, they’ve talked about it enough. But there are 107 members in this Legislature, and I think that when our forefathers conceived the parliamentary system here in Ontario that is modelled after the British system, they believed that all members should have the opportunity to speak to legislation. Well, in this Parliament, apparently that’s not the case.

Anyway, I will move on. I will adapt. I will adapt and I will speak to—well, I will speak to Bill 85, in a manner of speaking, because what I can’t understand is the gall of this government to even title a bill an “act to strengthen and improve government.”

They were parsing this out. Originally—it isn’t in the title of the bill—they were colloquially calling it the good governance bill. I’ll tell you that when I talk to people in my riding and when I travel across this province, the best thing these people could do to serve good governance would be to tender a group resignation. That would be about the best thing they could do. Since they won their majority, which they crow about all the time, somehow they think that their whole program has been accepted—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. I hope I don’t have to say anything, because I’m going to go to warnings.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —and embraced by the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that the results of the 2014 election were anything but an endorsement of the Liberals—anything but an endorsement of the Liberals. Since then, everything has gone downhill from there for them. They know it, so they’re trying to cloud the air and muddy the waters with bills that they’d like to call the good governance bill.

The tradition in this House is that you have the opportunity to speak to a bill, and we’re told, “You can speak to what’s in the bill.” But the nice thing about the other side of the convention here is that you can speak to what the bill doesn’t talk about and maybe it should in order to justify the title “improving government.”

Let me start with hydro rates in this province. They are killing this economy because of hydro rates. I’m sitting in estimates this week—my partner from Prince Edward–Hastings as well as I—and we’ve been asking questions of the Minister of Energy. My God, the answers—we don’t get answers; we get a diatribe about how wonderful it is under the Liberals, but never a direct answer to the question, questions that I ask like, “What are you supposed to say to Mr. And Mrs. John Doe who can’t afford to heat their homes because they’ve got electric heat?” They’re in their late seventies, maybe their early eighties.

They built a home in the 1970s when the world was telling them to heat with hydro, and they can’t afford the hydro bills anymore. On top of that, they installed air conditioning because their physician has said both of them have respiratory issues—and we want to keep them at home. “We want to keep them at home”—this is what the government says. They want to keep everybody at home as long as they can, which is the best place for them. They want to keep them at home, so the doctor has told them, “You must have air conditioning in the summertime.

You will not be able to live in that home under the heat and humidity of Ontario.”

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order. Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to hear about my beautiful bill that is before the House, and the people from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell would like to hear about my good governance bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you about your lovely bill, but the member is talking about good governance, and that’s part of your bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence on that, because they don’t want to talk about what’s not in this bill. They’ve made such a mess of this province that they want the cone of silence to descend across the province so nobody can talk about what they’re not doing—what they’re not doing to help those senior citizens who are going broke, who are making choices between heating and eating because of the hydro rates in this province. No, the Attorney General doesn’t want to talk about that. You know what? We’re going to talk about that. If you won’t defend the people of Ontario, this party will.

So when we talk about that couple who can’t afford hydro, we’re talking about one example of 13 million Ontarians who can’t afford hydro in this province. What does the government do? It doubles down on its failed energy policies. I asked the minister, “What can we expect on November 1?” He and the deputy just fudged all around it. I said, “What can we expect on November 1 when we’ve seen what has happened already this year?” The global adjustment cost Ontarians $7.7 billion in 2013 and roughly the same in 2014.

The global adjustment, which is that part of the hydro bill that pays for all of those fancy contracts they’ve made with these winds developers and the like, in 2015 to the end of August had already cost Ontario ratepayers $6.4 billion. I asked the minister, “Where are we going with hydro rates on November 1?” No answer. The deputy says, “Well, the Ontario Energy Board will set those rates.” Do you not think that the Ministry of Energy has access to all of the data that goes into that decision as to what the rates are going to be?

You can rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, that that announcement about what hydro rates are going to be on November 1—do you know when it will be made? It will be made during the constituency week, probably in the seventh inning of a Blue Jays game when nobody could care less about what’s going on in this Legislature.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to at least refer to our bill. We have 15 points; he likes to say everything else. I think there’s enough to discuss this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I think I’ve given the member a little latitude, to say the least. I think if you could at least mention the bill occasionally, and some of the things in the bill, that would be appropriate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I will certainly do that. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The government should stand up and say, “This is what the rates are going to be,” and not try and hide it through the announcement when the news cycle isn’t paying any attention to that. That’s good governance, when you tell the people what they can expect. People need to budget for the future.

The other thing about good governance—and I really do believe that this is all part of this bill because it says, “to improve government.” Well, government, as we know it in a democracy, Speaker, is a representation of what the people are asking for. Everybody, 13 million Ontarians, can’t come to Queen’s Park and run the government. So individually, in their constituencies, they send a member, and the members are collectively supposed to do what is best for those 13 million Ontarians. That is government. In the essence, it is a representation of what the people expect.

Do you know what the people expect? They expect transparency and they expect accountability from their government, and they expect their government to accept responsibility.

I’ll give you another example of good governance. Good governance would be that—and it has been shown in the past—when a minister or a senior official is under investigation and under a cloud, until that investigation has cleared the books that minister or that senior official will step down. Until the air is cleared, they will step down. We’ve got a situation here in Ontario where the Premier has the power. She has a senior Liberal—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve been trying, on this side of the House, to very nicely ask the member, through the Speaker, to refer to our bill. If I may say, it’s contrary to standing order 23(b)(i). The member should come back to this wonderful bill that we have about strengthening Ontario, a key factor that we collectively have heard put forward by Minister Meilleur.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I have mentioned to the member, as you know, about the latitude I gave him, to try to get back to the bill. I read it. I believe the bill says there are 15 acts that are affected by this bill. That’s a lot of acts and a lot of governance involved there.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m talking and I don’t need other people interjecting.

I think the bottom line is the member could come a little further towards talking about the act as opposed to going off on some tangents. But, I might add, while the member was off on his tangents, there were some comments from the government side in reference to a certain highway.

Thank you very much. Go.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Isn’t it amazing, Speaker—you’ve sat in this chair for some time now, not some time today but some time over the years—how upset they get when someone wants to talk about what they want to bury and they want to hide and they don’t want to talk about. But the people of Ontario need to hear this.

The Attorney General is the one who brought forth this bill. The Attorney General is the one who looks after the court system in this province. The Attorney General knows better.

In the past—and I’m talking about records now—we have had cabinet ministers in the previous government. The minute there was a sniff of an investigation, they stepped aside. Here we have a Premier who won’t have a staff member step aside who is under suspicion, under investigation—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This is your fourth point of order. Go ahead.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know what? If you look at standing order 23(b)(i), I can realize that this member is definitely not speaking about this bill. I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to ask this particular member to come back to our wonderful bill that we have moving forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I appreciate the member from Ottawa–Orléans bringing it to my attention for the fourth time. I’m well aware of what the boundaries are. If I feel that they step over the boundaries, they’ll hear from me. At this point, he has heard from me twice and I’ve tried to ring him in, so to speak. He will go back to the bill right now, won’t he?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Absolutely, Speaker. I hope that you will not recognize the member on a point of order again. It’s the same thing; we’re going to hear it over and over again. It’s my time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, it’s my time right now, and it’s my job to recognize points of order. I don’t think you are in the position to limit how many or how I handle that situation. That’s my job. You do your job; I’ll do my job. Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Very good, Speaker. I was distinctly told here last week that I wouldn’t be recognized on a further point of order, but that’s—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That was a different Speaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, actually, it was you, Speaker. It was during the oppo day. So I had that discussion with the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, and I was told I would not be recognized on a further point of order. We can check the Hansard.

Anyway, I’m going to speak on what I believe is necessary to speak on in this House. If someone chooses to interrupt me or if the Speaker chooses to shut me down, I suppose that’s his prerogative. But I’m going to stand here in this House, as the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and a member of this caucus, and I’m going to speak to what I believe is necessary for the people of Ontario. If it is my fate that I am shut down in this chamber of debate, so be it. But until that happens, I’m here for the reasons that I was elected. If someone wants to shoot me down, well, load ’em up boys. Load ’em up. I’m a big target.

Let’s talk about the Sudbury bribery scandal. You want to talk about good governance?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay, my turn. You’re shut down.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning to listen to the opposition speak about my bill. I would have been very interested to hear my dear friend from—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is now warned.

Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and one-half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, we wish to continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You can’t speak again. You’ve spoken on this, Minister.

Further debate?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess I’m a little disillusioned. We had some good debate going here, and I guess the government is a little disappointed with hearing some of the things that are being brought up today.

But I come from a riding where people are disappointed with the governance in this province. I never hear talk about the good governance going on with this Liberal government. It’s unfortunate, because Ontario has a lot to be proud of. We’ve come through a lot of hard times, if you go back through our great history. We’re sitting now, a province that really led the country for decades, probably centuries, in a situation where the other provinces are giving back to us because we’re a have-not province. Who would ever have thought that? When they took over, things were booming here in Ontario.

When I graduated from school after 17 years of school, friends of mine had wanted to get a little time off, but at that time, if you chose to, you were capable of getting unemployment when you finished university. People were being found jobs and couldn’t go on unemployment. What a change we’ve seen under this government, where now our youth unemployment is double the regular unemployment, which is stubbornly high.

My son had come back to Toronto after a couple of years working in Alberta to find some of his classmates, civil engineers—a good job, good education—still looking for jobs, working in restaurants as waiters. He went out to Alberta and within two days had a job. That used to be Ontario. But I hear small electrical contractors talking about being afraid to hire somebody young in this province because of the labour laws that have been put in place by this government, labour laws that really aren’t set up to help young people get a job.

We had a round table with our then-leader Tim Hudak. It’s interesting, because I talked to one of our small businesses and I said, “You know, you’re going to have to tell people in the community what’s going on here.” Do you know what his comment was? He said, “You don’t understand. We can’t talk about this, because under this government’s legislation and regulation, we get attacked.” It’s hard to believe that we’ve got people in this province who are afraid to say anything because of a situation that they’ve set up.

We had a round table, and we were going to have the press there—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s a culture of fear.

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s a culture of fear. We had a round table with Jim Wilson last fall where we had a number of small agencies in, talking about not having had an increase in funding in five years from this government, who say they do a great job and talk about great governance. They had not received an increase in five years. Jim Wilson said, “How could that be? I hear about all of these great programs—money coming out here, money there.” They said, “Yes, we get $10,000 here; we lose it over here. We get $20,000 here; we lose it over here. We just constantly lay off people to cover the costs of energy going up and property taxes.”

I asked a question, knowing the answer: “Why aren’t we hearing anything? Are you intimidated?” They said, “Absolutely. We’re told that if there’s a bad story out, we better hear the day before, or else.” That’s the governance of fear, and that’s not good governance. I don’t see anything in this bill that talks about that. It’s a lot of little things, asking around the ministries if there are any caretaking issues and making a big deal of this.

I talked just a few minutes ago about the bill introduced to stop burning coal in hydroelectricity stations in this province. The bill was issued after we stopped. What is this? Have we nothing else in this province to deal with? Could we not have a bill that actually attacks high energy rates? Where is your bill saying let’s do a better job at reducing new regulation?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Ottawa–Orléans was complaining.

Mr. Jim McDonell: This is a bill that adds more regulation. Where is the bill that gets rid of some of it?

They have an art of issuing bills with great titles. We sat here and they had a bill to reduce regulation in Ontario. The minister of the day stood up saying, “We’re doing such a great job,” and my colleague on this side stood up with two books, one from 2003 and one from 2014. The first one was 2,000 pages, the second one was 3,600 pages, and they call that reducing regulation?

But it’s that saying one thing and doing another that has been very clear from this government. “We will not raise taxes,” and within a month, the biggest health tax this province has ever seen. “We will not raise taxes,” and the GST comes in, a big increase.

People are getting fed up. I was very proud of the residents of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry because they were polite. Last year, when we went to the plowing match, there were loud boos at this government. It was embarrassing. The Premier even talked about it on stage. We didn’t do that. But there were people turning their backs, people who are very disappointed with what’s going on in this province. It’s embarrassing when we used to have a province of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry to interrupt, but the time has elapsed. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry will continue at a later time with this.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Joseph Brant and Matan Volach from the polycystic kidney foundation of Canada board of directors. I want to welcome them to the Ontario Legislature and all guests to the Ontario Legislature today.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to congratulate our page captain today, Matthew Keon Hartford, and welcome his mother, Dr. Yun Yee Chow; his father, Martin Hartford; and his brother Luke Hartford. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome a constituent of mine from Newmarket, Jeff Robertson, to Queen’s Park today. Jeff is the executive director of the Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation of Canada. I met with that group today and I was very impressed by all of them. Thank you very much for being here today, Jeff.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of the PC party, I’d like to welcome our friends at the Ontario Energy Association here with us today. Please join me in welcoming president and CEO Bob Huggard and his team from the OEA.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Karyn Greenwood-Graham and the Affected Families of Police Homicide, who are in the public gallery today. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to welcome the grade 5 students and staff from St. Barbara elementary school in my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. They are in the west public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In the west members’ gallery today, we have the grade 5 class from MacLachlan College in Oakville and their teacher, Martha Bonner. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to introduce Mary De Sousa, executive vice-president of marketing at FirstOntario Credit Union, in the west members’ gallery.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We have a number of guests in the gallery today who are here for the third reading of Bill 66.

We have, from the Earth Rangers, who will be here shortly, a group of children: Tovah Barocas, Amy Cross, Lisa Martin, Metta Martin, Tammara Tucker, Emily Tucker, Darlena Green, Catherine MacLean and Elizabeth MacLean; Mark Mattson from Lake Ontario Waterkeeper; Hilda Swirsky from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario; Kevin Rich and Jim Pimblett from Ducks Unlimited; Bob Duncanson from the Georgian Bay Association; Mark Fisher from the Council of the Great Lakes Region; Tim Gray and Natalija Fisher from Environmental Defence; and finally, Nancy Goucher from Freshwater Future.

M. Grant Crack: C’est un grand plaisir pour moi de présenter tous mes amis et mes collègues de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell qui sont ici avec nous ce matin pour Glengarry–Prescott–Russell day.

I’d like to welcome all the members who are here today from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Glengarry–Prescott–Russell day is in room 248 from 11:30 to 1. I hope everybody comes.

Mr. Harinder S. Takhar: I’d like to introduce Dalbir Singh Sidhu and Satinder Kaur Sidhu. Dalbir is a good friend and a great supporter as well.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce Mary De Sousa from FirstOntario Credit Union in the Hamilton area.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wanted to welcome our friends from the Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation of Canada. They’re doing wonderful work, raising awareness and finding funds to find a cure. We’ve got Joseph Brant, who’s the chair; Jeff Robertson, the executive director; and Matan Volach. Welcome, all.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to rise, with the unanimous consent I believe we have from all parties to wear PKD awareness—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we get into a shouting match, can I please hear the point of order?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I believed that there had been unanimous consent to wear the green ribbon for PKD awareness. Perhaps the government didn’t get the memo, but now I think they do, so we’ll all wear this beautiful green ribbon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean-Carleton is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Health care

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Doctors and patients are outraged by the Liberal cuts to health care. We’ve heard many stories across the province of how this is affecting patient care. I’ll share another today. We heard from Dr. Verbora, a recent graduate who, with his MBA degree, invested 11 years of his life and $250,000 to become a family doctor. He is frustrated with the Liberal government’s attempt to limit the number of doctors who can join family health teams. Does the minister believe this is the right message to send to Ontario’s new doctors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve made changes to our primary health care system, including focusing on those underserviced areas—places in the north, rural and small-town Ontario—that are lacking family physicians or in particular are lacking the family health team approach to providing health care, which is an approach—I think we all agree; the comprehensive nature of that care is very amenable to quality of care, and it’s a kind of service that patients really appreciate.

What we’ve done is we’ve actually encouraged and incentivized our new grads, as well as existing family doctors that aren’t currently part of a family health team, to go to those rural and small-town parts of this province, to go to northern Ontario to open up those family health teams. I would hope that that’s something the leader of the opposition could support.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Minister of Health: Only this Liberal government could try to sell an $800-million cut to health care as a good thing.

Let’s go back to the story of that new doctor, Dr. Verbora. This new doctor must see an average of six to seven patients per hour just to pay the overhead expenses, including rent, fees and insurance. After completing paperwork, Dr. Verbora will be left with three to four minutes of face-to-face time with each patient.

Mr. Speaker, a four-minute visit with a patient isn’t adequate for quality health care in Ontario. Why does this minister seem to think it’s okay to justify these cuts with more and more spin?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would agree that a three- to four-minute visit isn’t sufficient. I, in fact, would argue that this particular methodology of practising medicine isn’t the norm in this province. Our family health doctors, our family medicine practitioners—our nurse practitioners, for that matter, and the other front-line health care professionals—do provide the highest quality of service, and in the case of our physicians that’s why they’re the best paid in Canada. On average, they’re remunerated $368,000.

I understand that there are expenses associated with that that range from as low as 0% overhead—for example, our ER docs or those that practise in hospitals—to a higher amount that may be 30% or so in terms of those overhead costs. But our doctors remain and will remain the highest paid in this country—I would say probably in North America, in fact. That’s part of the reason why so many new doctors are coming here. We have 700 new doctors that practise—net new doctors —each year in this province.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the health minister: It may be little stories like the one we just shared with Dr. Verbora, but the Ontario PC caucus will continue to tell the stories of Ontario doctors because the stories of Ontario doctors are the stories of Ontario patients. These are patients who, because of the Liberal government, will have to wait longer for their emerg visit. They’ll have to wait longer for their first appointment with an oncologist after learning they have cancer. Why?

Because it’s more important for this Liberal government to spend $1 billion on eHealth than on quality health care. It’s more important for this government to waste $1 billion on Ornge than investing and making sure Ontarians have access to a doctor.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: What counts for this government? Doesn’t it matter that Ontarians deserve to have access to health care, and can’t you accept the fact that an $800-million cut is wrong?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The only cut to health care in this province has come from the federal government, a government that that member was part of. That $800 million he’s talking about is the annual cut in health care to this province from the federal Conservative government each year for the next 10 years.

We continue to invest in health care. Our health care budget goes up from year to year, and I—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’d like the member opposite to explain, with our doctors being the best paid in this country, how that could possibly affect—and this is only about compensation—quality of care or access to care. We’ll continue to pay our physicians for every service they provide. That won’t change. They’re the best paid in the country.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. This Liberal government is the only government in the history of Ontario that’s had to sell one of its best crown assets in order to pay for infrastructure. This Liberal government isn’t being straight with Ontario when they say this is required to pay for infrastructure.

On the energy file alone, if you look at the misspending, if you look at the mismanagement—$1.1 billion on the gas plant scandal, $1.1 billion exporting power to other jurisdictions this year alone, $2 billion on smart meters, $83 million on misbillings because of Hydro One errors. That’s $4.3 billion on the energy file alone because of your own mismanagement.

Will the Minister of Energy accept that if it wasn’t for their own incompetence, you wouldn’t need to do this fire sale?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member opposite is indicating a number of expenditures that we have made. We have made very significant expenditures in the electricity sector, starting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Having that advice is not helpful, either.

The member from Nipissing, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I have a long memory.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It was scandalous what we found when we took over government, the state of the electricity system. There had been a decline in generation. There had been a decline in transmission. We were in a deficit of supply. We were importing $1 billion a year from the US and rates were skyrocketing. It was a dirty system—25%—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and we had to rebuild the system.

In the supplementary, I will tell the new member to the provincial chamber of the investments that we’ve been making in the last nine years to make the system reliable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the energy minister: Soaring energy rates aren’t just because of these endless scandals. It’s the government’s day-to-day mismanagement of the energy file. In the last three years alone, we have lost roughly $3.5 billion exporting power to other jurisdictions. That’s almost as much as they’ll make on the fire sale of Hydro One. They’ve already charged Ontario taxpayers $6 billion this year alone for global adjustment taxes, and, by the way, that global adjustment tax the Auditor General said is there just to pay for this government’s expensive renewable energy contracts.

Anyone who mismanages a company this badly would be fired.

So my question is: Will the minister finally admit that this decision to fire-sale Hydro One is because of their own incompetence?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. I’m inches away from moving to warnings, so take that under advisement. It’ll happen.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the question on the global adjustment. It’s been raised in estimates as well by colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, before the global adjustment, wholesale market prices were insufficient to cover the costs of contract payments to certain electricity generators, leading the former PC government to accumulate billions of dollars in debt. This contributed to the stranded debt that consumers continue to pay off through the debt retirement charge.

That government bankrupted the old Ontario Hydro. They had to create the debt retirement—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford is warned. Anyone else?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They kept prices artificially low because they did not include all the costs to the system.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The global adjustment reflects costs associated with contracted and regulated generation such as nuclear, natural gas and renewables, as well as the cost of conservation programs.

In the next supplementary, I want to talk about their statements about Ontario having the most expensive electricity in North America, which is wrong—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing. I haven’t acknowledged you yet.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the energy minister: We already know that the minister personally objects to the sale of Hydro One—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —along with the Attorney General, along with the minister for seniors and the deputy House leader. This minister has the opportunity to do the right thing. This is his chance; this is his file. The minister is responsible for the people’s Hydro One—well, it’s still the people’s for now. We know the minister thinks this is a bad deal. He said so unequivocally when he was mayor of Ottawa.

My question is, will the Minister of Energy show he has some integrity, show he has the courage of his convictions—go to your Premier and say what you believe in your heart and what you’ve said on the public record: that this is a bad deal for Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m going to present an impartial opinion—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —of the Hydro One initiative. It’s from the Globe and Mail. It says:

“At a media briefing ... the IPO’s top financial and legal advisers addressed the press gallery, allotting time afterward to address substantive concerns about the country’s largest privatization in years.

“Despite filing a 322-page prospectus chock full of colour on strategy and the market’s appetite for utilities, they fielded incessant, angry questions about executive pay....

“Premier Kathleen Wynne was re-elected last fall with a mandate to reinvest in the province, particularly through transit and infrastructure projects that are expected to fuel growth....

“Much respect to the Premier for embracing such a difficult choice.

“The Liberals—advised by Mr. Clark” and other experts—have “persuaded Bay Street to accept some of the lowest IPO”—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Liberal government is desperately trying to justify their sell-off of Hydro One to Ontarians. They want us all to believe that they had no choice but to privatize our hydro. The truth is, they had better and smarter choices, like asking our biggest corporations to pay just a little bit more to help tackle the cost of congestion by investing in transit and roads. But they refused to make a better decision for Ontario.

When will the Liberals admit that they prefer privatization over every single smart and progressive option to fund the infrastructure that we need?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I read intently the nine-page platform put forward by the NDP during their election.

Interjection: Nine pages?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Nine pages. It was very thorough. Of course, they assumed every fiscal assumption that we put in our budget and in our platform. I recall when she said this on Newstalk 1010: “There’s no doubt we did talk in our platform about looking at some of the ... assets that the province owns,” and looking also at ways to provide the funding necessary to support infrastructure and investments in our province. That’s what we said we would do. That’s what we’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier’s sell-off of our most important public asset would only provide the equivalent of $400 million per year. The Golden report shows that a 1% increase in corporate taxes will yield $700 million per year. More than 80% of Ontarians oppose the sell-off of Hydro One—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —but a significant majority of Ontarians are in favour of modest corporate tax increases.

This Premier and this finance minister think they know better than Ontarians. When will the Liberals admit that they are rejecting better choices in favour of privatization?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite obviously doesn’t wish to broaden the ownership of our assets to reinvest in other assets to provide greater prosperity and economic stimulus. I get that. She doesn’t want investment in infrastructure and she wants to raise taxes to our businesses, which are struggling to rebound as well.

Part of our platform is to invest in our skills and training, invest in infrastructure over the next 10 years to bring Ontario to a place where it can be more competitive and also be very competitive for our businesses so that they can attract greater investment. That is why we have become the top destination in all of North America for foreign direct investment. It is why businesses in Ontario are surpassing businesses elsewhere in North America by investing in the things that matter, that create real jobs, jobs that are sustainable, jobs that will help families support their families and their children.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There’s no need for the province of Ontario to have a corporate tax rate lower than that of Alabama—no need. The Premier and the Liberals have simply run out of excuses. They have no way to defend the sale of Hydro One and maintain any credibility whatsoever.

The fact is that they had a choice. The Premier had a choice. This finance minister had a choice. They could have chosen to ask the most profitable corporations to pay just a little bit more to build the transit and infrastructure that we so desperately need. But instead, they deliberately chose to hand Hydro One to their powerful friends on Bay Street.

When will the Liberals finally admit that they chose privatization over every other option available and that Ontarians will pay the price for this bad choice for generations to come?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is warned.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Yes, indeed, there are choices to be made—some difficult choices. But by far the most important choice of all is the creation of more jobs. More than 100,000 new jobs were created last year because of our supports to businesses.

The member opposite talks about supporting those most in need. What we put in this plan was also an increase to the minimum wage, which—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo is warned.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —has an effect on business. She voted against that. She’s voting against trying to create more support for business, voting against those who are looking for better wages, and supporting those who want to invest in our economy. That’s what we support. That’s what’s going to create a much greater, stronger economy for Ontario and ultimately for Canada as well.

International trade agreement

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. The Trans-Pacific Partnership makes it much easier for foreign producers to import vehicles and parts, while reducing incentives for companies like Toyota and Honda to make products here in Canada. The TPP could kill a quarter of Canada’s existing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —auto manufacturing jobs. That’s nearly 25,000 Ontario families that will be affected. But aside from “figuring out where there needs to be compensatory action,” the Premier is happy to let this deal plow ahead.

Will this Liberal government stand up for Ontario’s automotive sector and the good-paying jobs that it actually provides and refuse to endorse this deal until it is fixed?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is the only government that stood up for auto. This is the government that was there when auto needed us most. We stood there alongside, the only subnational jurisdiction in the world to support the auto industry.

I appreciate the members opposite for asking the Mulcair question; right? They don’t even know what’s in the deal. We want to make certain that we review it, assess it and ensure that we protect the interests of Ontarians

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier of this province has taken every opportunity to pick fights with Stephen Harper. But suddenly, she’s willing to go along with a massive secret trade deal that he has cooked up behind closed doors so that she can march in lockstep with her federal leader. The Sierra Club says that, if passed, the TPP would “undermine decades of environmental progress and threaten our climate.”

Why do Liberals and the Premier suddenly trust Stephen Harper’s leadership on trade when the TPP could undermine efforts to address climate change here in Ontario and across Canada?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We want to seize opportunities, the greatest amount of opportunities that exist in the province of Ontario, with trade around the world. I think we all recognize how important that is for ourselves to be able to take advantage of the markets elsewhere. We certainly can’t rely on our market alone.

Now, the member opposite may want to stick her head in the sand and put walls around the country and avoid looking over the pond, but we must look at what’s happening elsewhere. We also must recognize that the United States—and she may want to hide behind the United States—is making a tremendous amount of negotiations that will proceed with or without Ontario and without Canada. We must protect Ontarians, protect our dairy, protect our auto, and we will do so—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Just say you’re endorsing Stephen Harper.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —after we review and assess the details as they move forward. We’re not going to make decisions when neither the NDP nor anybody else in this Legislature knows the full extent of what has happened.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it’s kind of odd not knowing the full extent of what’s in that deal and the Premier blindly supporting it in order to support her federal leader. Ontario has already lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs to low-wage jurisdictions like Mexico and the southern US, and now, with the TPP, there will be even more downward pressure on middle-class incomes.

The former US Secretary of Labor called the TPP “a Trojan Horse in a global race to the bottom.” No one is denying the need for trade, but this secret Conservative plan is badly flawed. The livelihoods of middle-class Ontarians, which we should be protecting, are at stake.

Will the Liberals and the Premier blindly join Harper’s race to the bottom or will they stand up for good-paying jobs for Ontario families?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Who is blind is the member of the third party and Mr. Mulcair, because they don’t know the details of the TPP. None of us do. So they’re asking us now to make a decision, being blinded. We don’t want to be blind. We want to make certain we understand what’s in it and then make the appropriate decision.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Speaker, this minister likes to say that motorist safety is one of his top priorities. Yet, one year after we saw the QEW transform into a treacherous, unplowed ice rink, he has still yet to actually deal with the situation. In fact, while the minister boasts of $500,000 in fines for the November nightmare, those fines are still under negotiation a year later.

Now the minister spins and spins, rewarding contractors with new equipment that government failed to ensure was on hand when they awarded the substandard contracts in the first place. In the meantime, the cost-cutting winter maintenance contracts government introduced in 2009 continue to place lives at risk.

Will the minister tell us why it has taken an entire year to deal with this situation?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the question coming from the member opposite. That member would know, as I’ve said repeatedly in this House, he is 100% right. In fact, ensuring that Ontario’s roads and highways remain as safe as they have been for the last 13 years is one of my top priorities. In fact, as was noted in the auditor’s report earlier this year, Ontario’s roads and highways have been ranked first or second across all North American jurisdictions over those last 13 years.

That doesn’t mean we rest on our laurels. Of course, the auditor did have eight recommendations with respect to the winter maintenance program, and we’ve accepted all eight of those recommendations. We have a plan to go forward for the upcoming winter season, which is what I’m focused on, to make sure that we provide an outcome for the people of Ontario that they expect and that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, back to the minister: One year later, as the minister ignored substandard winter maintenance contracts that led to tragic fatalities, he continues to spin fine announcements that aren’t even worth the paper that they’re written on. No amount of fines can make up for the tragic toll this government’s compromised contracting has taken.

But yesterday, the minister didn’t even know if the contractor would actually be paying the penalties he’s levied. It seems, when the government watered down contract standards in 2009 to save a few bucks, they included a bizarre dispute process that renders the fine system virtually useless. In fact, according to the auditor, that process led to 80% of the fines levied in 2013 not even being collected.

Will the minister tell us today the amount of fines levied last winter and how much did he actually collect?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I’ve said on many occasions, any time there is a fatality or an injury on Ontario’s highways, my heart goes out to the friends and family of those affected.

This member opposite will know that over the course of the last number of months, the ministry has worked very hard to come forward with a plan that will provide that outcome that I referenced in answer to the first question, including, for the upcoming winter season and for future winter seasons, a strongly improved Ontario 511 website. We’re launching a new program known as Track My Plow as pilots, both in the Owen Sound and Simcoe areas, with plans for further expansion. We’re increasing the use of anti-icing liquids before winter storms. We’re adding more equipment in key—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case the members didn’t catch on, interjections will get you a warning.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Thank you, Speaker. We continue to work with contractors to ensure that they have both reliable equipment and trained operators.

My responsibility as the minister is to make sure that our highways remain safe, and I’m focused on this coming winter season and those to come in the future.

International trade agreement

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question today is to the Acting Premier. This week, it was announced that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement was signed. The agreement is going to be bad for rural communities, bad for manufacturing, bad for our health care costs and very bad for the auto sector. It’s good to see at least one federal leader is standing up and opposing the deal, and hopefully your party will have the courage—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please put the question.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you. Acting Premier, with this deal looming on the horizon, what is this government going to do to protect good jobs in manufacturing and the auto sector that so many people in Niagara, Oshawa, the GTA, Brampton and Windsor rely on?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What is courageous is for people to make a decision with information in hand. What is discouraging is when people, for political reasons, are making decisions without information. What we don’t want to do is put Ontario at risk.

We have concerns. We’ve made that very clear when it comes to dairy farmers, especially when it comes to auto. We recognize that we must take mitigation and steps to ensure a sustainable industry in our province. We will continue to fight for Ontario, as we did when the auto industry required us. We were there. We’ll continue to be there. We must do everything possible to support our workers and support our economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: The Acting Premier can talk all he wants about an auto strategy and about helping manufacturers, but actions speak louder than words, and we haven’t seen that action.

The government won’t accept the job creator’s tax credit we put forward, and your reckless privatization of Hydro One is only going to add more pressure on these companies and the jobs they provide.

Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, who I believe would know what’s most important, has said that more than 20,000 Canadians will lose their jobs because of this. Niagara, Oshawa and Windsor are going to be some of the hardest-hit communities.

What will this government do to help people from manufacturing plants in Niagara and right across the province get back to work after this trade agreement is done?

Interjection.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario—the only subnational government in the world—participated in a support for the auto sector. We have provided economic development funds to attract greater investments in the auto sector in the province of Ontario. We put forward in a budget $2.5 billion in a Jobs and Prosperity Fund to support business investment, especially in the auto industry. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? That party turned its back on the province of Ontario and voted against those very measures to support the auto industry. And now they have the audacity to suggest that they should make a blind decision without review? That, sir, is what is inappropriate.

Northern highway improvement

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question this morning is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Our government’s 2015 budget is one that I am particularly proud of. We are delivering on our commitment to follow the path to balance. In the 2014 budget, we introduced the province’s economic plan, and now, in the 2015 budget, we have demonstrated the significant progress that has been made on our plan to date.

Job creation and economic development is a key part of our plan for building Ontario up. Just last week, I was proud to announce $69 million in funding for highways in northeastern Ontario, including rehabilitation on Highway 69 and expansion of Highway 17.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can the minister please explain how we are investing in northern infrastructure?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the member for Sudbury, one of the strongest advocates for infrastructure work, all across the province, but certainly in northern Ontario.

As referenced, in our 2015 budget, our government made the largest investment commitment in infrastructure in the province’s history: $130 billion over 10 years. In 2015, our planned investments of $11.9 billion are driving extraordinarily important infrastructure projects, including continuing very important highway work in northern Ontario. Through the northern highways program, which comes to our ministry, we are committing over $560 million this year: $387 million for rehabilitation and $173 million for expansion projects.

That, of course, maintains our very strong commitment and priority on four-laning major highway corridors in northern Ontario, including Highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, which we will complete, and also Highway 69 between Parry Sound and Sudbury. They’re very important projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I would like to thank the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for that answer.

We believe that when we are investing, we are building, and when we are building, we are growing. Our government is supporting a dynamic and innovative business climate across the province, Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is certainly not investing to the extent that Ontarians expect and need, particularly in small, rural and northern communities.

Just last month, I was proud to join the minister in announcing that nine kilometres of four-laning of Highway 69 is now in service between Highway 64 and the Murdock River. Since 2003, the province has invested more than $770 million to expand and improve a total of 59 kilometres of Highway 69. This ambitious highway expansion is vital to promote future economic growth in northeastern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister please explain some of the progress we have made this summer in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks again to the member for Sudbury. Certainly, it is about economic development and how important these projects are, but it’s also about safety. We understand, as northerners, how important it is to have a safe driving experience, and these improved roads mean exactly that.

One of the great stories over the last 10 years is the amount of investment we’ve actually put through the northern highways program into northern highways, which is more than $5 billion over the last 10 years. It references projects such as the one the member has referenced, as well as many others we’ve been very happy to make.

When you look at the Thunder Bay to Nipigon story, a project that really started in 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in that four-laning project, which will indeed be an economic boon to the area, and will also very much improve driver safety. In terms of that project, more than half of that particular stretch between Thunder Bay and Nipigon is now absolutely complete or it’s under way, and we’re going to make sure we drive through to the end, so—

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

Student safety

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Education. For the past 48 hours, my inbox and the phone calls to my office have been very much focused on the lack of security systems in place at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board elementary schools. More than anything, though, I’m concerned about the children, not only their safety but how they’re reacting to this. In fact, my own 10-year-old daughter this morning told me she was having lockdown practice today in a school that no longer locks. This is ongoing not only in Ottawa but, as you know, also in Halton.

When the former Liberal leader—and when you were a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, you increased the school safety supports in 2012 in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. It was also during labour strife, but it had widespread support. Now, three years later, student safety has been reduced to a bargaining chip.

I want to know, are you going to fix this before Thanksgiving weekend?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, we obviously share their concern about the safety of the children in the schools. Certainly we agree that it has been a big concern for parents to make sure that their children are safe in their schools.

I did call on the president of OSSTF to rethink that part of the strike action that they are taking, with respect to the monitoring of the buzzers and the screens and making sure that we have safe access to schools and safe entry to schools. We are absolutely working on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Minister, that’s not enough. Yesterday, in a neighbouring community to mine, in Kemptville, where the member for Leeds–Grenville is the MPP, there was a man wielding a knife outside of three schools, which went into lockdown. Their school board isn’t affected; the kids that I represent are. They’re expecting more from our government.

These kids in elementary schools in eastern Ontario and the rest of Ontario have been going through labour strife since 2012 with Bill 115. This is ongoing for three years, and now they are fearing for their basic safety in the nation’s capital.

I am asking the government to take this seriously. I would ask the government to ensure that before the kids in my constituency and elsewhere in this province go back to school tomorrow and for the Thanksgiving weekend, you resolve this issue.

I do understand that you’ve called upon the president of OSSTF. I actually went one step further and had the conversation and asked directly. You need to do the same. Will you do it?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We have certainly been in touch with the directors each day in terms of how they are handling this situation, what protocols they have put in place, and obviously, the directors are reporting back to us on the steps that they are taking to secure the schools.

But I must challenge some of what the member opposite is saying. What she has reported accurately during her questions is (1) that lockdown drills are continuing, as they always do at this time of the school year, and (2) that when there was an actual threat to safety, the lockdown procedures were immediately implemented by the schools in question to ensure the safety of the children. So I think she needs to actually listen to her own question that when there is an imminent threat, that threat is dealt with—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We should just scare children? That’s what we should do? Just frighten them; that’s what they’re doing. But you don’t have a kid in school, so you wouldn’t know.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Order.

The member for Nepean–Carleton is named.

Ms. MacLeod was escorted from the chamber.

Mr. Todd Smith: Wow, that’s pretty sad. Double standard, Speaker; come on. That’s pretty sad.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is seeking himself to be removed?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Education is warned.

New question.

Executive compensation

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. When it comes to post-secondary education, this government has no problem allowing tuition fees to skyrocket, no problem with poverty wages for teaching assistants and no problem replacing full-time jobs with contract staff, but it is not willing to hold the line on executive compensation.

Earlier, I raised the issue of the million-dollar salary legally paid to the president of Western University. Now we are learning about a 50% salary increase for a University of Ottawa VP over the two years since the public-sector wage freeze took effect. Allan Rock, the university president and former Liberal cabinet minister, is defending the increase, saying that it is compliant with provincial law.

Why is this government refusing to take real action to rein in the salaries of senior university administrators?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I understand why people are frustrated. Ontarians deserve to know why executives are paid and what they are paid. That’s why we brought in the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. Based on that act, we are going to put caps on the salaries; we’re also going to prohibit pay in lieu of leave.

I recently wrote a letter to the chair of the board of governors and executive heads of all universities and colleges across the province of Ontario letting them know that we will be collecting information about the salaries, health benefits and other benefits which executives receive from the institutions.

We are going to look at the work that people in other jurisdictions do, as well as putting a cap on the salaries of executives. We are not going to do this on an individual basis; we are going to take a very close look at what’s happening in other jurisdictions and make sure that—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Ontario university students pay the highest tuition fees in Canada; they have seen tuition more than triple over the past 20 years. Post-secondary students are among the fastest-growing group of food bank users—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: —while student tuition dollars are being used to subsidize out-of-control executive salaries. The government talks about compensation frameworks, but what we need are hard caps that work.

When will the minister close the loopholes, remove the wiggle room and finally put a hard cap on salaries for senior university administrators?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank the member opposite for that question. As I said, Ontarians deserve to know why executives are paid and how much they are paid. We are aware of the situation at the University of Ottawa. I’ve been in touch with the university. It’s not uncommon for the university administrators, those who are working in research and education, to get raises in their respective work, and we are actually encouraging the administration to continue their academic activities as well.

With regard to student tuition fees, Ontario is one of the lowest in the country when it comes to student tuition fees. The student debt has been decreased for over a number years. Some 70% of the fees which students pay are grants—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Reza Moridi: —non-payable grants.

We are so proud of our academic institutions. Two of our university professors won the Nobel prize yesterday and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I will remind the minister, when I stand, you sit.

New question.

Condominium legislation

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. In the past weeks, members of this Legislative Assembly have debated the proposed Bill 106, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act. They have brought forward important priorities from their constituents like transparent board governance, accountable use of fees, extensive warranty coverage, professionally certified management and timely, cost-effective, dispute resolution.

Right now, 1.3 million Ontarians live in condos. In my riding, vibrant communities such as CityPlace, Fort York and Liberty Village are home to many young professionals and condo owners. As the existing Condominium Act has not been updated for nearly 20 years, it is these communities that need these changes the most. This proposed legislation has the potential to modernize condo law in these areas and provide condo owners with the protection they need.

Minister, could you please inform this House why it is so important for us to pass this bill?

Hon. David Orazietti: First of all, I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his question and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the thousands of condo owners in his riding.

Our government understands the need for condominium owners to have important protections. Our party was the only one that spoke to this issue during the last election campaign. The proposed legislation reflects 18 months of consultations directed toward ensuring that this proposal meets the new standards that we’re aiming to put in place.

In the 18-month consultation period, we received over 2,200 submissions from residents, developers, property managers, agents and other members of the public, as well as advocacy associations to protect condo owners. We reiterated this commitment to modernizing the Condominium Act in our 2015 budget by introducing Bill 106 last spring. The bill was significantly influenced by condo owner organizations, and I hope that all members will support this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to thank the minister for this informative response, and his ministry for its hard work on this very important issue.

I personally know that it is a crucial issue in Trinity–Spadina. Downtown living is at a premium, and it is important that we protect the rights and investments of our condo owners.

One of the benefits of this proposed legislation is that it will enable the creation of two new delegated administrative authorities. One will license condo managers and the other will provide a modern, cost-effective dispute resolution system. These are both very important functions for condominium owners. For them to best meet the needs of Ontarians, it is important that these organizations are accountable.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister explain what mechanisms have been proposed in this legislation to ensure that these DAAs are subject to proper oversight?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member from Trinity–Spadina: The creation of two new delegated administrative authorities will be critical to adding accountability to the sector. As the member stated, these organizations will have added accountability and oversight. That’s why, for the first time, the proposed authorities will be subject to salary disclosure, accountability agreements and Auditor General oversight. As organizations outside government, we’re also taking steps to make them compliant with a process similar to FIPPA inside government.

Speaker, the administrative authority’s model has a foundation of providing consumer protection in Ontario for over 15 years, and its continued use was a key recommendation put forth in the 2013 Drummond report.

We’ll continue to work to ensure that these proposed administrative authorities and other authorities are overseen by our ministry and meet the high standard of consumer protection that this government is setting in Ontario.

I look forward to seeing this bill hopefully move to committee, and I want to thank the member for his efforts.

Water extraction

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Will the minister explain the process that the ministry uses to consider applications for permits to take water on a large scale? What assurances can he offer this House that the process adequately ensures the long-term protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater in adjacent areas?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First of all, I do want to recognize the member for Wellington–Halton Hills because we’ve been working very closely together on some matters that are not just particular to his constituents and some municipalities but concerns across that. I do say that he has taken such a very non-partisan and statesman-like role in this, and I greatly respect the honourable member.

As the member knows and I think members in this House know, we have some constitutional differences in Canada. In western Canada, provinces own the water, which allows them to manage and control and price water, unlike Ontario and the eastern provinces, where the water is held and lent by people on the land, which means that protecting municipal water supplies is much more complex here. Our water-permitting process works on the volume of water being extracted, which provides some protection but not sufficient. That’s the limitation we’re working on and trying to find better solutions to.

In the supplementary, I’ll continue the conversation with the honourable member.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, Nestlé Waters, a water-bottling company, says it’s considering the purchase of a property in the township of Centre Wellington, with a plan to draw large quantities of water as a backup to its existing wells near Aberfoyle and Hillsburgh. The township council and local residents have expressed interest and concern, and township representatives and I met with the minister last week to discuss the relevant issues.

Will the minister assure my constituents that any permit to take water applications by Nestlé Waters will be subject to a thorough scientific, hydrogeological review, with an open process for public comment by interested residents, taking into account the planned population growth in Centre Wellington because of the government’s Places to Grow policy, recognizing the water needs of agriculture, and guaranteeing the protection and preservation of the quality and quantity of groundwater in our communities for present and future generations?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We share, I know, with the honourable member some serious concerns, particularly in Aberfoyle, where we have 27 monitored wells. When water tables have dropped, when the water levels have dropped, we’ve actually had to shut some of them down. So we’re being particularly mindful about the Nestlé situation, as to what it would mean to the protection of local water supply. I want to thank the member opposite.

I also want to thank the Minister of Education, the member for Guelph, who keeps me abreast of these as well as you do.

We have been meeting, and we met together with the honourable member and municipal leaders, and I think we’ve crafted a reasonable plan going forward, which I know the member has been supportive of, and I will be accountable to him and to the community to ensure that that is fully realized. We want to protect jobs in the community, but not at the expense of our environment, and in this case, with the honourable member’s leadership and the co-operation and support of, I also want to recognize, the member for Guelph, I think we’re going to do this and get an economic win and an environmental win, which I think is the desire of the honourable member.

Pension plans

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier. Today, the court overseeing the creditor protection process is expected to grant US Steel its demand—and it is a demand—to stop paying post-employment benefits to 20,000 pensioners and their families. That’s health benefits, medical benefits, dental benefits and life insurance. These are not handouts. These are deferred wages, gone just like that, to line pocketbooks in Pittsburgh.

These pensioners gave 30 to 40 years to the Stelco plants, bought by US Steel on a promise that they would not do this. This work takes a toll on the people who undertake it. It’s hard, hot work that breaks down your body. For many of these retirees, US Steel’s callous cuts may be a death sentence.

US Steel is washing its hands of the thousands of pensioners whose health was ruined by these steel plants, and there’s no safety net to protect them. What will this government do to hold US Steel accountable?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has long advocated—and I give him credit for standing up for the people of Hamilton and those workers.

We have before us a number of motions being put before the courts that will put in jeopardy the livelihood and the going concern of US Steel Canada, which will affect over 12,000 retirees, 4,000 workers, and puts them at risk. We have been at the table, and we’ll continue to do so, recognizing that more needs to be done to support them.

I know that it’s before the courts; I know things are fluid and they’re ongoing, but I’ve been disappointed in terms of what has happened thus far, and we will work hard to ensure we protect the interests of our retirees and our workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m glad you said that, Minister, because there are 150 steelworkers in this building, as we speak.

It’s hard to believe, but it only gets worse. US Steel is also expected to succeed in their demand to no longer pay municipal taxes to the city of Hamilton. That’s $6 million a year to local coffers that goes to pay for schools, paved roads and other things. It’s hard to think how this won’t end up being a provincial problem, with a provincial price tag—and a large one.

Speaker, everything has been too little, too late, and the federal Conservative government has done absolutely nothing to help these people. They sold out. They knuckled under. They are a disgrace.

Will this government stand up for the pensioners, stand up to this corporation and hold US Steel accountable for what it’s doing to my city of Hamilton and to the people of this province? We must do something now.

Interjections.

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