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

September 16, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Sep-16 (PDF)

L096 - Wed 16 Sep 2015 / Mer 16 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 September 2015 Mercredi 16 septembre 2015

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Automotive industry

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Pesticides

Teachers

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Taxation

Government accountability

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mining industry

Child care

Youth services

Wind turbines

Notices of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Adrienne Newport

Refugees

North Bay Regional Health Centre

Bear control

Events in Ottawa–Orléans / Événements divers à Ottawa–Orléans

Highway improvement

Rosh Hashanah

Taste of the Kingsway

Introduction of Bills

1170517 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Health Information Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Estate Administration Tax Fairness Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 concernant l’équité de l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Rehabilitative or Therapeutic Purposes Exemption), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la location à usage d’habitation (exclusion pour services de réadaptation ou services thérapeutiques)

Introduction of bills

Petitions

Ontario farmers

Gasoline prices

Lung health

Taxation

Missing persons

Health care

Mental health and addiction services

Lung health

Dog ownership

Concussion

Hydro rates

Lung health

Orders of the Day

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

Adjournment Debate

Pesticides

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 14, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

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

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We are not prepared for questions and comments, so I’ll now move to further debate.

Further debate?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to rise today and to add to the debate of Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. Just before I begin though, Speaker, I want to take a moment to say that it’s great to see all my colleagues here in the Legislature and, once again, welcome to the member for Simcoe North.

Over the summer, MPPs are able to return home to meet with their constituents and to hear their concerns on a wide variety of provincial issues. One of the many things that many members heard at home that was echoed at the recent Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, conference was the need for provincial government to listen to stakeholders and municipalities. More than just listening, they need a government that is willing to be a real partner. Far too many groups have offered the government input only to see them change course with a snap decision unilaterally.

I hope the government is willing to listen when it comes to Bill 73. While I cannot speak for the government or third party, I can say that the PC caucus is here and ready to listen. We’re ready to work for you, and we want to work alongside municipalities to ensure that they are set on the right track.

Last week I had the pleasure of addressing the Chatham-Kent Home Builders Association. More importantly, I was able to hear their concerns regarding a number of issues, one of which was Bill 73. Their chief concern was red tape, which is hurting their industry and making it harder for them to expand operations and create more jobs, but they did have concerns with this bill. Their main concern with the bill was the potential for development costs to be raised with negative effects for Ontarians seeking housing.

In a press release, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association made their concerns very clear. I’m going to quote from a portion of that press release: “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) is concerned that new transit taxes on development will disproportionately increase housing costs for residents and the cost of setting up new businesses.”

Our critic the member for Oxford has been carefully considering the benefits and unintended consequences of this bill and has been actively engaging with municipalities and stakeholders. We, alongside the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, were surprised that the government moved ahead with this bill before conducting any consultations on some of the key areas that the bill deals with.

We understand why municipalities are looking to develop development charges to pay for additional infrastructure. They’re looking for any additional funding they can get after years of cuts and a downloading of services by the Liberal government.

I would like to take a moment to highlight one key planning issue that is of massive concern in my riding.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m glad to see we’re feisty in the morning. That’s good. A little bit of downtime would be nice here. Thank you. We’re going to jump on you bright and early, okay? New deal around here now. Thanks.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Speaker. You know, the government is like a toothache: When you hit a nerve, they go, “Ouch.”

The municipality of Chatham-Kent alone, in my riding, has over 4,000 municipal drains with a total length of 4,800 kilometres. The municipality performs approximately 550 drainage projects annually. Most of these projects are related to ongoing maintenance, and the rest are capital projects.

Chatham-Kent is incredibly concerned over new changes brought in by this government that will see further demands placed on municipalities across the province. In the words of the municipalities, with Chatham-Kent already completing in excess of 550 drainage projects each year, it will be impossible for them to comply with the new self-monitoring and reporting process.

They estimate they would need to hire two full-time experts at a cost of roughly $250,000 just to manage the new reporting and application requirements that were previously handled by the province. One of the things I don’t want to see is members of the administration of the municipality of Chatham-Kent go to jail, and that’s what is being implied through some of this legislation. Given that Chatham-Kent is trying to rein in its own deficit, it’s unrealistic to expect the department to be able to afford to hire these experts while also keeping up with the sheer volume of annual drainage projects required to keep them operational.

Local officials were able to meet in my office here at Queen’s Park with policy advisers from the government, who, to their credit, were receptive to the municipality’s concerns with the unintended consequences of the upcoming changes. If this issue is not addressed, it will seriously jeopardize the future growth of Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I don’t want to see as an unintended consequence of this legislation is an increase in the cost of housing in the province. There are currently 168,000 families on the wait-list for affordable housing. We must do all we can, as legislators, to ensure that this number falls. If balance in this bill is not achieved, then, unfortunately, the opposite just may happen. Increased development costs are inevitably passed along to homeowners, condo buyers and renters alike.

A couple of years ago, Ipsos Reid conducted a survey on behalf of the Ontario Real Estate Association. In that study, 94% of Ontarians said that owning a home provides a healthy and stable environment for raising a family. It’s clear that many Ontarians dream of one day purchasing a home. In fact, nine out of 10 Ontarians say that owning a home is part of the Canadian dream. We don’t want to see them have that dream crushed by rising costs extended to Ontarians.

As I conclude my remarks, I just want to stress the importance of balance when it comes to the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. It’s about ensuring that individual communities and businesses have input into the future of their communities. It’s about addressing concerns while ensuring that good projects can move forward. Currently, we’re seeing the exact opposite under this Liberal government.

Ontario has just under 2,550 acres of vegetable greenhouses, with more than 2,000 of those in the Leamington and Kingsville area. My riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, and the region as a whole, depends on the greenhouse industry and the good-paying jobs that it provides, with spill-over benefits to the entire community.

The industry is ready to grow, but the government is not ready to let it grow. They simply cannot expand without access to more electricity. They also need new transmission lines so that they can sell the power they generate to the grid, and additionally, better hydro service would allow greenhouses to add light for the winter months so that they can grow a year-round crop.

Based on a 5% growth estimate, which is very conservative, the industry could expect another 660 acres of new greenhouses in the next five years, boosting greenhouse vegetable sales by $205 million.

The government’s delays on a crucial hydro transmission project are costing Leamington jobs and investment. Leamington mayor John Paterson was very clear when asked about the potential for growth and the danger of inaction by the provincial government. I’m going to state him verbatim: “We’ve said to the Minister of Energy, we’ve said to the Ontario Power Authority, we’ve said to everyone who will listen to us, if you don’t do this, Leamington and Kingsville are stymied. We can’t grow. We don’t have the hydro capabilities here.”

Our community has already paid heavily for this government’s failure. The community and businesses are screaming for help from the government, but their pleas have gone unnoticed. Don’t ask the government; ask them. Nature Fresh Farms announced earlier in the year that it would be bringing a $200-million expansion and 300 jobs to Ohio instead of Ontario. The company cited massive hydro prices and the transmission project’s delays as the reason Leamington did not receive those needed investments.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that there are other MPPs in the Legislature that would agree with me when I say that Leamington and the Essex county area desperately need jobs. We cannot afford to let good-paying jobs and expansion in Leamington slip away because of dithering by the government. This government is preaching smart growth, but when a golden opportunity to grow hits them square in the face, they don’t know what to do. That’s not smart at all.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this morning in this hallowed place, the Legislature.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the comments made by the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. Speaker, as you’re well aware, there are many things that are missing in this piece of legislation that the NDP has noted as we’ve gone through it. We see that the government has been consulting on this for about a year and a half, but really, do we have a bill that addresses the questions of sprawl? Does it address the questions of the OMB essentially negating democratic decisions at the city council level? No, in fact, Speaker, we don’t have that.

The OMB is something that this government has promised to reform for over 12 years. In fact, this bill doesn’t provide the reform that people across Ontario have been expecting and people across Ontario need. It doesn’t sufficiently protect municipalities from needless appeals to the OMB. In my own riding, Speaker, there are projects that have come forward where the developers have effectively ignored the city of Toronto, ignored the planners, ignored the local politicians and the local community, and gone straight to the OMB.

Speaker, that undermining of the ability of cities to plan rationally and have everything set up at the OMB is a huge failing of this government’s approach to cities and city planning. We need to encourage sustainable, transit-friendly land use planning. The province needs to support regions like Waterloo that plan for smart growth. Instead, the province has allowed developers to use the OMB to overrule municipalities and the province’s own Places to Grow Act in order to pave over farmland and build more sprawl. If the government is serious about cities that work and taking on climate change, this bill is inadequate.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The first thing I would say is that I was absolutely astounded that the member talked about downloading as though it was something that has just happened. We all know that the golden era of downloading costs to municipalities—the platinum era—was when the Harris government was in power.

They said, “We have a deficit problem, and we have a solution for it: We will simply download on the municipalities the costs that the provincial government used to have, and then we will say we have solved the problem.” I can well recall those days when municipalities had a legitimate beef with the provincial government. The Progressive Conservative, as it’s called here—even though it’s Conservative—government in Ontario downloaded. Even Conservative politicians at the local level were astounded by this.

This government, the Liberal government, did exactly the opposite. It has been uploading financial responsibility, taking that onerous responsibility from the municipalities and placing it where it belongs, at the provincial level, at the cost of some $2 billion. Even when the provincial government was facing major economic challenges, we did not make a decision to say, “Well, we have a solution for that. We’ll discontinue the uploading process.” No. Even through the most difficult times, we have continued to upload those responsibilities.

I know that the member didn’t have an opportunity to clarify that the downloading took place under the Conservative government and the uploading of responsibilities has happened under a Liberal government.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to rise. I served as mayor of the city of North Bay for two terms under this government, and I recall very, very well the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund: the changes that were made in that, when my community was stuck with several million dollars in new uploads. I know that our new mayor, who has been there since I left—over the last four or five years, almost—complains in our local newspaper every year about the additional uploading that’s coming from this government. So to hear that is a bit rich.

More specific is Bill 73, the smart growth act. Speaker, we really do have distinct problems, challenges and opportunities in Ontario, and I would only hope that some accommodation is made. When you look at southern Ontario, the GTA and southwestern Ontario, there was the Golden Horseshoe plan. Really, that plan is all about containing growth. But when you cross north of Vaughan, as many people in this Legislature haven’t done yet, you’re in a whole different world, especially as you come to northern Ontario, where our northern growth plan is all about igniting growth.

There really are two diametrically different plans that should be in place. I can only hope that Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, really does adequately address the differences that are needed in Timmins and Kenora, and in my community of North Bay, that are so vastly different from the requirements in an urban setting like the GTA.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, on behalf of the great people of Algoma–Manitoulin, and it’s great to be back at Queen’s Park once again.

It was interesting: Yesterday my colleague Mr. Rosario Marchese was here, who worked extensively for some monumental steps and worked extremely hard for some reform under the OMB. Unfortunately, this is something that is not within this act, which could have essentially brought a lot more meat within the context of this act.

The thing this does not do is that it still doesn’t provide sufficient protection for municipalities that are suffering through needless appeals to the OMB. What it doesn’t do is provide housing and development growth. Ontario should be moving forward and removing needless barriers so that municipalities and others can move with their projects.

I was here earlier during a previous debate where a colleague of mine brought up a very interesting point: If you don’t have the proper power supply—and my previous colleague, my friend who talked about the barriers to northern Ontario—you will not have growth. That’s one of the biggest challenges that we have in northern Ontario, having that proper power supply, proper hydro supply, in order to attract investment. This is one of the greatest challenges we see in the corridor going towards Thunder Bay. I was actually up there a couple of weeks ago, and they are very challenged in regard to attracting that investment.

I look forward to hearing more discussions in regard to this act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex has two minutes.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I would of course like to thank my colleague from Toronto–Danforth; the minister without portfolio, the member from St. Catharines; the member from Nipissing; as well as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I appreciate what their comments were and what they had to say.

The member from St. Catharines, the minister without portfolio, talked about uploading, talked about downloading, upload, download—that’s in the past. Right now, let’s talk about the present, and let’s project into the future.

Right now, in my riding, I mentioned earlier, we have about 4,800 kilometres of drainage and everything else within the municipality, 550 drains. We need help. We need finances to help us. Not just us, but AMO has talked about that as well.

Now, it’s unfortunate, it really is unfortunate. This government could have helped out in a big way, and they know they could have helped out in a big way. Unfortunately, there were things such as gas plant scandals. There were other instances where money could have been perhaps better utilized, which would then allow for more money to help out municipalities who are in dire need right now. My concern was the fact that you have a situation in Leamington even, where you have Nature Fresh, of course, a big greenhouse operation and 300 jobs. But why are they leaving? It’s the hydro costs, and he’s told us—300 jobs.

They’re going to Ohio, where, by the way, I believe we pay Ohio to take some of our excess hydro.

We need help, and so we’re appealing, I’m appealing to this government to in fact help our community grow and develop so that we can have those jobs, we can have affordable housing, and there will be no more of this downloading.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order, the member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Point of order, Speaker: Earlier, in my two-minute hit—I want to correct my record—I used the word “uploading” when I was referring to the word “downloading.” Trust me, I do know the difference between uploading and downloading.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome everyone back to the Legislature, from all the MPPs to all the staff who make this place run efficiently and smoothly.

Speaker, over the summer months, MPPs were busy in their ridings meeting with organizations, having town halls and meeting with constituents. Many people think we are not working, but this is not the reality for all of us. The work we do when we are back in our ridings is very important. When we are not here at Queen’s Park—being back in the riding allows us to engage with our constituents, attend community meetings and events, and, through discussions, we have the opportunity to develop legislation and ideas, and understand what people have to say about issues and about this government.

Then, our responsibility is to bring back their voices to the Legislature and voice our constituents’ concerns here with this government.

The first reading of Bill 73 was in March 2015, second reading started in April 2015, and then the House rose in June 2015. Now we’re here, the first week back—this is the actual first week back in the Legislature—and as the MPP for London–Fanshawe, I look forward to participating in the debate on Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, also known as the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

What this bill does is it includes some long-overdue improvements to the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, but in our humble opinion, here on this side of the House, there’s still much missing from this bill.

I understand the government has conducted public consultations on land use and planning development charges for a year and a half. That’s quite a long time to go out throughout Ontario and consult with people to hear what they have to say. And though the act is rather thick on paper, it’s thin on OMB reform that the government has been repeatedly promising for over 12 years.

For the short time that I’ve been here—and I think 2011 and 2014, that’s still a short time—I’m not surprised by the lacklustre legislation this government brings forward. You have to ask yourself, “Can’t this government make a commitment to legislation that will really make a difference, and then actually follow through on what they say?”

The consultations probably gave people a lot of hope. They probably thought, “Finally we’ll have a chance to be heard and there will be legislation and reform at the OMB.” Alas, Bill 73 does not sufficiently address municipalities and the needless appeals to the OMB. What does it say to municipalities that invest in planning reviews and developing new land use policies when a developer can turn around and immediately ask for the OMB to alter the new rules? So we ask: What reasons do municipalities have to invest in such initiatives? We need to give them incentive and we need to give them legislation that will work for them.

As many other MPPs before me in this House have pointed out, this bill ignores solutions to affordable housing, and one of the solutions we think will help affordable housing in many communities throughout Ontario is inclusionary zoning. That’s an NDP proposal that this government claims to support, but it’s not in the bill, which is very disappointing.

My fellow MPP from Windsor–Tecumseh gave statistics about the need to fix—which is very important, because a lot of affordable housing right now in all cities throughout Ontario needs to have maintenance—and the need to build more affordable housing that will also help people who have been on waiting lists for far too long.

I don’t think this is anything new, so I really want to make sure that I articulate it. People have basic needs and one of the basic needs is a house, a place to live. Right now, what we’re facing is there are many people who are struggling day to day, trying to make ends meet. They’re actually struggling to get by. Their rent is expensive, tuition’s expensive; they don’t have retirement benefits. People’s hydro rates are up. Some people call my office, and their hydro rates are half the cost of the rent they’re paying. So affordable housing is essential. It’s essential to survival and to a healthy community. Having affordable housing is basically having a stable place to live.

In my riding, like many other ridings, I’m sure, through the Legislature, MPPs have co-op housing and geared-to-income housing. Those are wonderful builds in our community. They need to be incorporated throughout cities, and inclusionary zoning is a great way to accomplish that.

A couple of days ago, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence was ranting and raving about, “You’ve got to give us some ideas. What are your suggestions to make these bills better? You need to help us out and make government work.” That’s a perfect suggestion: inclusionary zoning. Put it in the bill. It’s going to make a huge difference to people, to communities and to thriving cities. We know in Toronto there’s a real gap in affordable housing, so I hope the member from Eglinton–Lawrence is listening. Take it to the minister; act on that suggestion. There’s one suggestion.

London, I have to say, is a wonderful place to live in. The city has been promoting growth in London in many ways, and this bill allows me the opportunity to talk about what London’s been doing. In 2012, city of London staff began a public consultation called ReThink London, which sought to gather as much public input as possible regarding how residents would like to see the city develop. It was the most extensive public consultation process for an official plan in Canadian municipal history. Consultation topics included: culture, prosperity, regional connection, green thinking, transit and neighbourhoods.

It was a groundbreaking initiative to pre-emptively and actively engage the residents of London in owning the future of our city.

The results of ReThink London were incorporated into the London plan and our city’s 20-year official plan that contains significant progress and changes into infrastructure, including improved standard transit as well as new rapid transit, development of the Thames River shoreline, and infill in the core and suburbs to prevent further sprawl. The plan focuses on transit overhauling and infill, two initiatives that are directly impacted by land use planning and development charges, which this act doesn’t address. So there are some issues with the Development Charges Act amendments that directly affect our city’s official plan and development progress.

Area rating policies currently allow municipal councils to determine if and where specific areas of the city should be subject to different development charges. We have some concerns that the rigid language in the revised act might inhibit councils from exercising discretion over area ratings.

One of the reasons the city of London waived development charges for the downtown core and Old East Village areas was to promote growth and development, a decision that has produced demonstrably positive results, attracting companies and small businesses to the city’s rapidly reviving core. An example of revitalization that was recently in the paper was the old Mark’s Work Wearhouse building located on Dundas Street in Old East Village, which is now going to be transformed into a grocery store with a training component.

Speaker, there are also concerns about appeals of the development charge bylaws to the OMB only resulting in maintenance of, or decreases to, the council approval rate. A suggestion London city staff has expressed is that the board members should also be able to increase the development charges rate if it is deemed appropriate. That’s another suggestion the government can take into account.

As it stands, the development charges do not allow for municipalities to recover growth-related capital costs from the building of certain municipal services. These costs instead are absorbed by the taxpayers. If these ineligible services are removed from the Development Charges Act, it would provide municipal councils with the authority to determine what municipal services should be subject to cost recovery. There are similar concerns about city taxpayers bearing the load for development of soft services that are currently subject to a mandatory 10% deduction for capital needs recovery.

Homebuyers pay a lot of money in development charges and parkland dedication fees when they buy a home. They deserve to know how and where their money is collected and spent. We hope the promised transparency in the act will truly deliver.

While this bill is a step in the right direction, my party is certainly eager to see improvements. The legislation is not what the government promised Ontarians. These kinds of half measures only pay lip service to the real issues, or the affordable housing crisis the New Democrats will call to the government’s attention. Our communities need assistance and we must do more. We have an obligation to help them.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: It gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill 73. I want to start by saying it’s time for this Legislature to move on and to get this past second reading so we can get out to the committee process and have people come in to talk and consult on this good piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, so far we’ve had over eight hours of debate here in this Legislature, and we’ve had over 40 people speak on this proposed piece of legislation. I’m starting to get the impression that the opposition is deliberately delaying this process. We want to get out there and talk to people. We want people to be able to—

Mr. John Yakabuski: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: As the minister well knows, it is not in keeping with the standing orders of this House to question the motives of members of this assembly. I’m offended by the accusation that we are deliberately doing something to hold up the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We will take your comments under consideration and we’ll just ask the minister to temper his attack. Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, we’ve gone out there as a government and spoken to Ontarians. There have been over 1,200 submissions that have come in. We also know that there have been 20 public workshops that have taken place since October 2013. We’ve had mail-in and email submissions come in.

It’s time for us to move forward on this piece of legislation because we’ve got other work to do in this House. We’ve got Bill 85, the good government act; we’ve got the bill that I proposed, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act; Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act. There’s a lot of work we need to be doing in this Legislature, and again, I’m starting to get the idea that there may be some intention to delay this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I am astounded—astounded—that a minister of the crown would come in and make those comments here in this House.

Bill 73 is a very important piece of legislation to our members. We all interact with municipal leaders in our communities. In fact, I am the MPP to 18 municipalities. I have not had the opportunity to speak to this bill, and I don’t count what we call two minutes of questions and responses an opportunity to speak to this bill. I am looking forward to that opportunity. Yet, at every turn it seems that the government is only interested in shutting down debate. This is the government that is now known as the government of stifling debate and calling closure motions, when they spoke against them in their previous iteration when they were in the opposition.

Now, I’m not questioning their motives. They’ve got an agenda; we understand that. But they need to respect that every member of this Legislature is sent here to represent their constituents. We need to have the opportunity to stand up in this chamber and reflect the views that have been passed on to us. The minister loves to talk about these workshops. Those are shams and he knows it. They are staged little episodes to try to make the government look like they’re actually doing consultations. We know on every piece of legislation—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, it appears the decibel level has gone up a bit, and it’s going to go down real quick.

Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, you know me; I hate to raise the decibel level in this House. It’s only because when the government does something, we have no option but to stand up and defend the constituency we represent and defend—I must defend—the members of our caucus over here who want an opportunity to speak to this vital piece of legislation. I hope we get it.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from London–Fanshawe. In the time allotted to her, she tried to touch on as much as she could about the weaknesses in this bill and the need for a bill that will actually make a difference.

I wanted to add that this bill has an opportunity to do work on the question of affordable housing. It could be bringing in an inclusionary zoning standard that would allow people across this province who are facing profound problems with housing affordability an opportunity to get stable, secure and affordable housing by allowing—by making part of a development agreement—to have the developer provide low-cost housing in large developments. It’s a fair approach in a time when governments are constrained financially. Sometimes they constrain themselves; that’s another discussion. But it is going to be part of a strategy that’s needed in this province to deal with affordable housing.

I don’t know about you, Speaker, but when I go around my riding, I consistently come across families and households that find themselves paying an incredible portion of their income for housing and can’t afford it. I came across a person just a few weeks ago in a unit that had one bedroom, a couple with three children. They were desperate to move, to get into something that would provide them with housing that gave everyone the room they needed to live.

Ignoring, setting aside the opportunity that presentation of this bill presents to address inclusionary zoning and provide more affordable housing is a huge failing on the part of this government. If it does care about the people of Ontario, it should be taking these opportunities to actually address a huge issue.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 73. I’d like to use this as an opportunity to welcome all members back to the House after the summer, when we have been in our communities speaking to people. In fact, that whole aspect of public consultation and engagement is really critical to our work here in this Legislature. By moving this bill to committee, it actually gives us an opportunity to do further engagement and consultation with communities, which I’m certain that all members of this House would support.

There have been over 40 members who have spoken to this bill in this Legislature—over eight hours of debate—and, in listening to this debate, it’s clear that all members support this piece of legislation. Getting it to committee will allow further refinement of this bill and an opportunity for more consultation.

If passed, Bill 73 will ensure that the development charges and land use planning and appeals system are more predictable, transparent and cost-effective, and better able to meet the needs of our stakeholders and of our communities. Amendments to the Planning Act will focus on enhancing citizen engagement, achieving more predictability, supporting municipal leadership and protecting long-term public interests.

It is in our best interests to move forward on this particular piece of legislation. It raises the focus that we have on growth-related infrastructure like transit. Transit is of particular importance to me in my community, in my riding, and I believe that we should move on with this legislation and send it to committee so we can get more consultation and more engagement on this very important piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London–Fanshawe has two minutes.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I was excited to come back to the Legislature this session, as I always am, but I’m certainly disappointed that this government feels that debate is not part of a democratic right that all MPPs have to stand up and talk to each bill. I was just saying to my colleagues, and it’s completely coincidental, that 10 minutes is not enough to talk to a bill. I wrote down some points in my notes and I could barely get to all of them.

If this government is so dead set against giving us a voice to speak to every bill that comes before this House so they can hear our suggestions and our comments, perhaps they don’t have to put up speakers; we could control the debate. That would be okay with me, and that would give us more time to speak, so by all means.

Every member in this House wants to talk about this bill. It’s an important bill. One of the things I would like to ask the government, and this is something I wasn’t able to mention in my notes here on Bill 73: The government had a press release back on March 5, 2015, and the press release indicates: “The government also announced”—this is a quote—“the launch of a Development Charges Working Group of key stakeholders, including municipalities and developers that would provide advice on complex issues needing further consideration.” Now, we understand that that’s not part of the bill.

So my question to the government, or even to the minister, if anyone can help me out here: What’s happening with that proposed working group with regard to this bill? I’d like an answer to that if that’s possible.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no, I’m leading—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much for that update. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke almost was put on the spot there. He has 18 municipalities in his riding that he wanted to speak on, but I have 17 municipalities in my riding, Mr. Speaker. It seemed like—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: And a First Nations territory, I might add, so there we go.

I have been looking forward to the opportunity to speak to Bill 73, as I know my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has, and I believe my colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has many municipalities in his riding as well and he would probably like the opportunity to bring some thoughts and comments on behalf of the municipalities that he represents in that vast, expansive rural riding in eastern Ontario. I think that’s why we’re all sent here: We have the opportunity to represent our constituents in the Legislature.

Many of the members that we have heard over on the other side represent a small segment of a much larger municipality, but this government isn’t interested in hearing from all of the other municipalities in Ontario, and there are so many of them out there. There are 440, as a matter of fact. I think sometimes this government is only interested in listening to about eight. The large urban municipalities: They’re the only ones that they’re interested in hearing from because, let’s be honest, that’s where most of the votes are when it comes to trying to win a provincial election.

That’s who they’re catering to, and a lot of rural Ontario has been left behind as a result of the actions of this government.

Bill 73 is another cute-named bill. It’s the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. It makes it sound like there’s actually something smart in this bill that’s going to impress people in ridings right across Ontario and in communities across Ontario. I can tell you that, once again, this bill is about as flimsy as that piece of paper right there. There’s not a whole lot of meat on this bone when it comes to this bill. This is something that this government does time and time again, though.

They’ll bring in legislation that doesn’t have anything in it but it has a real snazzy-sounding title that everybody can get behind. Well, how can you vote against smart growth for our communities? You can’t, really. But there’s nothing in the bill, when you get to it. My wife is a high school teacher, and if she saw this bill, she would grade it as incomplete. It wouldn’t even be worthy of a letter; it would be incomplete. I think that’s the case, but I digress.

As we move on here, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario represents the municipalities in Ontario, and their reception, or their reaction or response to Bill 73 is lukewarm at best, I would say. Let me quote here: “Elements of the bill which are problematic: AMO objects to the requirement for an upper-tier planning advisory committee”—or a PAC—“with at least one member of the public. The mandatory PAC will create more issues than it resolves.” We know that it wouldn’t be the first time that this bill has actually brought forward legislation that’s created more problems than it solved.

They have a pretty good track record of bringing in legislation that makes it more difficult for smart growth and smart development in the province than it fixes.

The Ontario Home Builders’ Association—let’s hear what they have to say. They have a mixed reaction to this as well. They’re saying: “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) is concerned that new transit taxes on development will disproportionately increase housing costs for residents and the cost of setting up new businesses.” This highlights another remarkable trait of bills that this government introduces: Somehow, somewhere, they’re going to find a way to make it more expensive to do business in Ontario, and that’s what this legislation is poised to do.

Municipalities are constantly running into planning challenges, but this government has chosen only to address a few that seem to fit the narrow list of things that they want to talk about in some of their large urban municipalities. For at least the last two years, I’ve had meetings in my office in Belleville and up in North Hastings, and even here at Queen’s Park during the ROMA conference that happens every February, regarding the use of private roads in small, rural municipalities. They call them condo roads in a lot of the small, rural municipalities.

The government has done nothing to address this issue and the concerns of municipal councils in these small municipalities in regard to Bill 73. That’s something that they could have tackled in Bill 73.

In fact, the government policy seems to be to disregard the concerns of a lot of small municipalities. I can even cite the example this past week of the mayor of Prince Edward county. Prince Edward county is a pretty significant municipality in the grand scheme of things in Ontario. It seems to be the number one most promoted tourism area in any of the Ontario advertising that you were seeing on TV during the Pan Am Games or during the Olympics when they were in Sochi, Russia. The Ontario ads, “Yours to Discover,” promoted Prince Edward county in five different snapshots of the sandbanks or wineries in Prince Edward county or downtown Bloomfield or wherever it might be.

There are specific concerns that are being expressed by the mayor and council in Prince Edward county that aren’t being dealt with by this government. As a matter of fact, when they go to AMO and the mayor of Prince Edward county meets with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and a number of other ministers—the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Tourism—he is promised that things are going to progress down the road.

But when he follows up with the office after having the meeting at AMO or whatever the conference might be—“Well, we can’t meet with you.” That’s the response that he’s getting: “We can’t meet with you,” for this reason or that reason or another reason, or, “We can’t address your specific situation.”

They’re saying one thing when they’re face to face, but when it comes time to actually put the rubber to the road and do something about it, they find an excuse not to. It’s shameful what’s happening. Relationships are deteriorating between municipalities and the provincial government because of the actions of this very arrogant Liberal government here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Wow. Wow.

Mr. Randy Hillier: You’ve heard the same thing, Lou.

Mr. Todd Smith: Yes, definitely. I’m not even going to go there.

Naturally, what’s happening is the Premier’s office has brought in another Minister of Finance. They brought in Ed Clark. He’s actually the new finance minister for the province of Ontario, or policy adviser, or whatever they want to call him.

At times, this bill seems designed to ensure certain outcomes, but at the same time it seems totally unsure of what it wants those outcomes to be. We’ve seen that when it comes to, for instance, the sale of Hydro One. I’m not going to go down that road now because I don’t have the time, but we will hear more about the Hydro One fire sale, I’m sure—in question period today, perhaps.

There are elements of this bill that are actually worthy of supporting. In his address to this year’s AMO conference, the president of the association said that the association wants policy that reflects a desire to have growth pay for growth. Not a bad motivation behind planning policy, but it has to acknowledge certain truths, one of which is that we have a housing affordability problem in this province. We have 168,000 people, Mr. Speaker, who are on a wait-list for affordable housing with thousands of them in my riding of Prince Edward–Hastings.

We have people who are downsizing in our communities because they can’t afford their property taxes. They can’t afford their hydro bills. They can’t afford their mortgage on the house that they currently live in, so they’re having to downsize. In the case of many seniors, just the property tax and the hydro bill are enough to make it tough to make ends meet month after month.

I’m not sold on the idea that increasing the cost of doing business in order to build homes in the first place is the best way to solve an affordability problem. Municipalities are facing ever-increasing financial strains. Oftentimes, the property tax base is an insufficient source of revenue. Belleville council has regularly spoken about the tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure in the city that either needs to be replaced or will soon need to be replaced. It’s not just Belleville that is saying these things; it’s municipalities right across the province.

The provincial government has continually pushed problems to the municipal level. This has taken many forms, whether it was ending the OMPF funding, which is a huge problem for small municipalities in my riding, cuts to the special dam funding, or a lack of seriousness when dealing with the arbitration process in the province or arbitration reform. Municipalities are continuously being asked to do more with less.

How we ultimately help municipalities best meet the needs that come with growth and planning is going to be a matter that generates considerable debate. Once again, I’m brought back to the fact that this government has put forward a bill that has little meat on the bone. There are not a whole lot of issues that are being dealt with in this bill. They could have been dealt with.

In Prince Edward county, this very concern is raised as the government pushes to erect 400-foot-tall turbines that are being hauled down roads that can barely withstand regular traffic from a Mazda, let alone the giant vehicles that are being brought in to haul these industrial wind turbines down those roads to build these monstrosities in the community. All this, by the way, would be going through an incredibly sensitive wildlife habitat. One can only imagine what any other developer would have to pay to bring those trucks and have that kind of development occur there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to wrapping this up.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to listen to my colleague the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. It’s good to see him in the House again. He referenced his home riding—a beautiful part of the province. Sandbanks Provincial Park is definitely somewhere you want to go—Picton, Deseronto; all those wonderful places—and the best walleye fishing in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, he also raised some really important, valid points about the nature of this bill, the fact that it really is not as substantive as we would have liked to see in this House when it comes to dealing with the very serious nature of the challenges that municipalities have when facing and trying to analyze sustainable growth in their communities.

Speaker, of the 444 municipalities in the province of Ontario, did you know that it would take a property tax hike of at least 1% for them to raise $50,000? That’s a massive hike for small municipalities—about half of the municipalities in the province—to deal with the impact of growth and the nature of their needs, infrastructure needs just in general. That’s enormous, let alone the pressures that have been placed on municipalities due to successive governments, as we’ve heard today, downloading responsibilities onto municipal rolls. That’s something that they still continue to struggle with.

My colleague mentioned some remarks from the president of AMO, Gary McNamara, who is from my area. He’s the mayor of Tecumseh. He has expressed some real frustration at the nature of the consultation by the government. It seems as though they have walked away from their acknowledgement of the role that they need to play when it comes to supporting municipalities.

This bill is doing something—not enough. We certainly look forward to adding some reforms that we know can support those municipalities.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me pleasure to spend a couple of minutes to respond to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings and also to make some comments about the bill.

The member says that we’re ignoring municipalities. I’m going to talk about municipalities, not only the eight that I represent in my riding, but the ones surrounding my riding. For the members’ knowledge, I do meet semi-regularly with the warden of Hastings; he’s a great fellow. I meet with the mayor of Tweed, the mayor of Prince Edward, and I regularly meet and chat with eastern Ontario wardens. I’ve been doing this for the last 10 or 12 years. So that line of communication is there.

We talk about the lack of consultation with municipalities. We’re the only government in this country of ours that has an MOU that we meet virtually every month with AMO to share their concerns. We don’t always agree, I will say that, but I’m—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Very seldom. Very seldom.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: The majority of the time we do agree and we accept their suggestions—contrary.

Speaker, for the record, I just want a couple of quotes, for example. This is from AMO:

“AMO appreciates the action being taken on review of the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, and the province’s commitment to providing citizens a greater say in how their communities can grow and municipalities’ increased ability to cover costs of growth-related infrastructure.

“Congratulations on bringing forward Bill 73, which takes major steps forward in creating the stability the planning system has lacked in the past number of years”—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Lacked.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Lacked—“and to help municipalities recover the costs of growth in their communities.”

I have a long list here of comments from AMO and member municipalities. I look forward Thursday to going to the eastern Ontario municipal convention. I’ll be there to speak to those folks.

Speaker, reality is reality.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s my pleasure to address comments from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. He mentioned about smart growth in this title. I think anybody who’s been involved with municipalities and with development in this province will understand and know intuitively that we have a very complicated, onerous and costly planning regime in this province. What is smart about making it more costly, more complicated and more onerous, which is what Bill 73 does? There’s nothing smart about this bill.

I also want to bring attention to the members in the House today that the member from the Scarborough–Guildwood, in her earlier comments, mentioned—and used it as a pretext to end debate on this bill. She said that all members are in agreement with this bill and that we should send it to committee; there’s no need to hear from anybody else.

She may want to correct the record. I’ve listened to debate this morning. There is not full support for this bill. I think you’d have to be in some other pixie-dust land to think that there was support in this House for this bill. So the member from Scarborough–Guildwood may want to use both ears while listening to debate and not come to these false conclusions.

Once again, I represent rural municipalities—a number of them. There are significant troubles. Most of the troubles that they experience with the Planning Act are not by other developers challenging but from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The member mentioned in his comments about private roads—that’s a big deal. We’ve had many, many objections to the OMB by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to development and official plans. That is what needs to be addressed and what is failing in this bill.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I welcome the comments from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, who has, from what he indicated from his numbers, a huge amount of communities that are there. But I’d like to one-up him. Out of the 444 municipalities that are in Ontario, 37 municipalities are in Algoma–Manitoulin: 21 First Nations and 15 local service boards. I love each and every one of those communities, and I try to get to them each and every time.

One thing I do want to comment on: He made a comment in regard to the PACs, and he’s right. The single- and upper-tier municipalities are required to create planning advisory committees which “shall include at least one resident of the municipality who is neither a member of a municipal council nor an employee of the municipality.” Municipalities may join with others to create a single PAC; however, the PACs are not specified or given any information within the context of this.

Also, earlier the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport made a comment in regard to shutting down debate. It’s funny how quickly you want to shut down debate on this, but when we have one of the biggest policy debates in regard to the sell-off of Hydro One, we’re not having that opportunity to have a chat.

The member also talked about the OMPF funding that has been reduced, which the government now has claimed they have reintroduced, but at a lower amount. The dam funding: You’re absolutely right. The special dam funding has been under threat of being eliminated, which affects 111 municipalities—which a community out of Algoma–Manitoulin has taken the lead on in the fight in order to maintain that.

I do want to correct the record. My two colleagues the member from Essex and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings talked about walleye fishing. There is good walleye fishing in Prince Edward–Hastings, but everybody knows that the best fishing for walleye and pickerel is in Algoma–Manitoulin.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you to the member. I’ve learned every fishing spot in Ontario this morning.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes.

Mr. Todd Smith: Perhaps the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and I can settle this outside after.

I thank the members from Algoma–Manitoulin, Essex, Northumberland–Quinte West and Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for their comments on my comments this morning as well. I think what we’ve heard from a number of those who have spoken today, including the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, is that there are other municipalities out there in the province that this government isn’t listening to.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: That’s what I said.

Mr. Todd Smith: You have eight municipalities in your riding. Mr. Mantha has 37 in his riding.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The new procedure around here is: We talk through me, not to each other. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m always happy to speak through you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the thing is that, when you look at the municipalities that are represented by those who just spoke, I bet you, of the probably 60 municipalities that are represented by the members who just spoke, very, very few—single digits—are actually experiencing growth of any kind. Right? I think that that’s a problem in rural Ontario. I know that it’s a problem in my riding. In some communities, we’re experiencing negative growth, and this bill does nothing to address the situation in small rural municipalities. It’s all about big development.

As the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Mr. Hillier, said, this bill is actually making it more costly, complicated and onerous for planners, for developers, for growth in our province. That’s a big problem. This bill doesn’t do what it should be doing. There’s nothing smart about this bill. It’s just a sound-good sound bite for this government.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I agree with my friend from Prince Edward–Hastings that the various municipalities that are represented by rural members are not experiencing growth and have not experienced growth for quite some time. Yet they still have to plan for it, and they still have to build in those costs for projected growth, as an optimistic region would do: always looking forward, always projecting forward and always trying to incentivize and entice that growth.

I know that’s what is happening in my area, in Windsor and Essex county, in Chatham–Kent–Essex. Those guys are always looking forward, trying to be innovative in their approach to development, working with developers, working with industries and trying to facilitate it. They just simply wish they had a partner at the provincial level that acknowledged that that is what they’re doing, and moulded and tailored policy in that regard.

Somebody made mention that we shouldn’t be debating this—I forget who it was; I think it was somebody on that other side—but it is quite interesting. It seems as though the government has touted that they have consulted widely on this bill. They’ve had some round tables, some discussions with municipalities. However, the largest policy initiative ever put forward by a government in the history of this province, the sell-off of Ontario Hydro, has yet to have one iota of discussion with the public at all. They are keeping that in the dark.

It is unbelievable, it’s unfortunate, and it really is telling in terms of what they prioritize and what they don’t—what gets to be debated and what doesn’t get debated. So when it is our time and it is our right to debate a bill in this House, rest assured that we will take it as duly elected members of the House, because that’s what our job is.

This bill, as has been mentioned, doesn’t really go as far as municipalities and those who are integral players within growth and development in municipalities would like. The bill includes some welcome improvements to the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, but it is still missing many initiatives and much real, tangible policy, and it really behooves this government to put into place those types of initiatives that they know exist.

They know they exist because there was a previous bill, Bill 39, which was put forward by a member of the Liberal Party, not a newly elected member—I think it was one of his first bills, and we supported that bill. It went a lot further in terms of addressing the challenges for municipalities, specifically dealing with the OMB.

We know that homebuyers pay a lot of money in development charges and parkland dedication fees when they buy a new home. They deserve to know where the money is collected and spent. That’s what Bill 39 did: It dealt with the OMB. It dealt with some provisions of accountability and transparency for ratepayers, to know that their development charges are actually going to enhance the communities in which they live.

In my area of Windsor and Essex county, we really have some incredible dynamics between municipalities, one of which, LaSalle, is where my wife is from. It’s really a wonderful community. It’s on the banks of the Detroit River, a historic community that has experienced growth over the years. That’s one of the areas that we could point to that has experienced some growth, due in large part to the prudent planning of the municipality, but also the prudent financial discipline and the fiscal discipline that that community has had. You feel it. The roads are nicely paved. They’ve got good planning.

They’ve got a good amount of natural space that’s built in. It really is a wonderful community that people are flocking to.

However, they are now on the boundary of the Herb Gray Parkway, a provincial roadway that is, again, one of the largest expenditures of this government, one of the largest they’ve ever endeavoured in terms of the cost. They spent a lot of money on that thing.

Ms. Soo Wong: Yes. It’s beautiful.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, it’s beautiful. It has eased the traffic. It’s wonderful. However, the four years of construction that that community has endured, and the arterial roads that the construction companies have had to use, have caused a lot of damage to the municipality and to the municipal services. In fact, some residents who are on the boundaries of the parkway are now experiencing massive flooding due to the water that’s being accumulated because you’ve covered so much of that area with cement and asphalt.

The municipality is saying, “Wait a second here. We certainly would like some help. This is your project. You’ve created some chaos in terms of road usage, damage to roads and the need to repair them. Can we have some help? Can we have a partner in this, seeing as though it was a component of the project?” There’s no partner to be found. The answer was, “No. Sorry. Live with it. Get on with it.” So there’s another example of where the government has—not officially downloaded costs on them, but by their actions have caused more strife and grief for a community. A community that has, again, if you look at their books, been fiscally prudent and really, really well regarded in our community.

However, they still need support. If you look at the applications for support through various methods and various programs, the province is reticent to support them because their books look good. They’re doing so well that the province can’t support them in terms of grant money for infrastructure. Therefore, they have to look at other methods to supplement that cost, the cost for their infrastructure and the cost for their growth. That’s just one example of the challenges that exist.

Speaker, a glaring omission in Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, is any attempt from the government to address the serious issue of affordable housing. It is at crisis level, definitely in the GTA. Interestingly, if you come down to my riding, we still have a definite need for affordable housing but, in general, the housing is some of the most affordable in the world—well, in the province. That’s why I encourage anyone to come and look at some real estate prices in Windsor and Essex county. It certainly makes more sense than it does in the GTA. A similar-sized house in Essex would be a third of the cost, which for some people just doesn’t make sense.

Speaker, the government could and should enact some provisions to include inclusionary zoning, which would give the municipality the tools to demand that developers build those types of projects into their development, therefore creating communities that are affordable and accessible for all residents. It’s certainly something they could do that would go a very long way.

My colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex again referenced the fact that growth isn’t happening because of other metrics, mainly the high cost of energy, but also access to energy. In the area of Chatham–Kent–Essex and my riding of Kingsville, Essex, they have a lot of greenhouses that need access to power. Interestingly enough, we are surrounded by, I would say, hundreds of windmills, large industrial wind turbines that are generating power, no doubt, yet we can’t feed them into our municipalities to incentivize and add to the growth and the capacity.

For years and years we’ve heard this government say that they were going to do something. When I was first elected, the Minister of Finance was Dwight Duncan from Windsor–Tecumseh. He stated at that time that he had this issue resolved: It was going to be changed; it was going to be fixed. Here we are four years later and still no inkling of resolution for the community of Leamington.

Certainly, this bill is something that gives a little bit of hope that the government is paying attention. However, we know that, through amendments that we will propose to the bill, we can certainly make it stronger, and we’ll hope that the government listens to those amendments. Many of them will be amendments that exist verbatim in Bill 39 that a member of your caucus put forward and that we believe actually could make this bill stronger. So we’ll see how you vote at committee on those amendments, those very amendments that are derived from a member of the Liberal Party, because we actually think that a good idea in this place doesn’t need too much—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’ve got 11 seconds. If it’s a good idea, Speaker, we certainly would want to see it implemented. We appreciate that. Oh, we’ve got time here.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, and with some assistance from the member from Essex, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and welcome the Ontario Good Roads Association team in the gallery today, led by president Rick Champagne from the municipality of East Ferris, and executive director Joe Tiernay. I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes, indeed, the Ontario Good Roads Association will be here. I’ll be meeting with Tom Bateman, the county engineer from the county of Essex; Dave Burton, the reeve of the municipality of Highlands East; and Thomas Barakat, the policy adviser for the Good Roads Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m going to just take a moment to introduce Rick Harms. Rick is here with the Ontario Good Roads Association as well. Rick works for the city of Thunder Bay. He’s a long-time employee. I had a good relationship with Rick when I was back on city council in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Welcome, Rick, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to also welcome Rick Champagne, councillor from my riding of East Ferris, who we’ll be meeting later with Good Roads today.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to introduce Helen De Roia, the mother of page captain Jacob Raponi De Roia, from Ottawa South, who is here today. Jacob’s grandmother Ann De Roia is here as well.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to welcome to Queen’s Park today Chris Traini, who works for Middlesex county. He’s here with Ontario Good Roads.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome Drinks Ontario to Queen’s Park. The provincial trade association will be hosting a luncheon reception today in rooms 228 and 230, and all members of the Legislature, their staff and media are invited. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce, in the gallery today, Reeve Dave Burton from Highlands East, who is also here with the Ontario Good Roads Association. He’s a member of that executive. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to welcome guests from the Ontario Good Roads Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I very much enjoyed our morning meeting. Thank you for that. Let’s welcome them.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to introduce, on behalf of my constituents, my local school board trustee, Mark Fisher. He’s joining us today in the gallery. It’s really nice to see you today, Mark. Thank you for joining us.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to reinforce the introduction from my colleague from Ottawa South. I’d like to introduce Ann De Roia, who is the grandmother of page Jacob Raponi De Roia, from Ottawa South, but Ann is from my community of Etobicoke Centre. Welcome, Ann.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to welcome to the chamber today Councillor Bryan Lewis from the town of Halton Hills. Welcome, Councillor Lewis. Good to see you here.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want members’ attention for a very special guest who is visiting our Legislature today: the 46th governor of Indiana, from 1989 to 1997, and US senator from Indiana from 1999 to 2011. Please welcome Evan Bayh to our Legislature.

I also want to welcome the CEO and president of Bruce Power, Duncan Hawthorne; the president and CEO of the Council of the Great Lakes Region, Mark Fisher, who is also a school board trustee in the city of Ottawa; and James Scongack, who is VP corporate affairs at Bruce Power. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome the chief administrative officer of the fine city of Belleville, Rick Kester, to the Legislature today.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce someone who unfortunately cannot be here today but I know is watching from home: my fantastic former legislative assistant Michael Paolucci, who today embarks on a new journey, going off to the UK to pursue a master’s degree at the London School of Economics. We’re going to miss you, Michael; best of luck.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: From the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, we’d like to welcome Brian Anderson. He’s here with Ontario Good Roads Association. Welcome.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I just noticed, looking at the members’ gallery, that we have the deputy mayor of the great city of Tillsonburg, Dave Beres, with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have some guests with us today in the Speaker’s gallery: Matthew Banninga, Alison Brown, Brittany Davis, Olivia Labonté, Sydney Oakes, Sara O’Sullivan, Justyna Zegarmistrz, Eric Zinn, Isa Topbas and Julia Redmond. These are the interns for the next 10 months working for various MPPs, and we’re thrilled to have them here.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to point out two things:

(1) You’re the ones who are being interviewed by them, so behave for them; (2) this is the program’s 40th anniversary, and we are very proud of our intern program and we’re glad to help you. Thank you very much for being here.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find we have unanimous consent for all members to be permitted to wear a gold ribbon pin in support of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is seeking unanimous consent to wear the gold pin. Do we agree? Agreed.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Across the province, when seniors open their hydro bill, they are shocked—shocked that they might not able to afford to pay their hydro bill. The same people who built this province as Canada’s economic engine have had their government turn their back on them as energy prices skyrocketed. Those seniors have watched Ontario sadly become a have-not province. They worry about keeping the lights on in the face of energy bills that have risen by $1,000 on the watch of this government.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Premier care so little about Ontario’s seniors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said before in this House, I hope that when the issue of electricity prices is raised with any member of the House, they point to the programs that have been put in place specifically to help folks who are perhaps struggling to pay their bills.

We’ve put in place the Ontario Electricity Support Program; that’s a program that will help low-to-modest-income families save an average of $360 a year. We have put in place, on the industrial side, the Industrial Electricity Incentive Program and the industrial conservation initiative. There is a property tax and seniors rate that seniors can apply for.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition points people who raise this issue with him to those programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is once again for the Premier. When I think of the billing scandal of Hydro One, I’m often reminded of that citizen from Timmins, that senior who saw $10,000 taken from his account incorrectly by Hydro One—seniors on fixed incomes who, in the words of the Ombudsman, were “mistreated,” “abused” and were victims of deceit and deception.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier callously ignore the needs of Ontario’s seniors because of her reckless energy policy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So, Mr. Speaker, I take it the argument that the Leader of the Opposition is making is that Hydro One could be a better-run company. I hear in his question the assumption that it should be a better-run company.

The motivation for broadening the ownership of Hydro One is to invest in infrastructure. That is our starting point, but the reality is that this is a company that can be better run. With a professional board and leadership, it can be a better-run company.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope I do not have to employ yesterday’s strategy, but I will.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, just to remind him of what he said on May 5 of this year: “I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. I generally think market conditions would be helpful for a lot of government agencies.” I assume he means Hydro One in this case, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: In this very chamber, the minister responsible for seniors, the Premier’s Liberal MPP for York West, said on the topic of the Hydro One privatization, “We should try to protect this wonderful facility which, if sold, will not come back into the hands of the people of Ontario anymore.... We will be at their mercy. Once it is gone, we will have no recourse, no control with respect to the rates, and they will go high.”

It must be hard for the minister responsible for seniors to look seniors in the eye and tell them that this deal is good. Why won’t the Premier listen to her own cabinet ministers? Why won’t the Premier listen to seniors? Why does the Premier proceed with this Hydro fire sale, callously ignoring the wishes of Ontario’s seniors?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: At points in the debate around issues in a caucus, there are obviously different opinions. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has that situation in his own caucus. We have very, very active debates within our caucus, and that’s healthy. That is very, very healthy for democracy. I welcome those debates within my caucus. I think that’s how we make good decisions. I think it’s how we hear the perspectives from around the province.

We made a decision that we were going to review our assets. Ed Clark—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will now employ yesterday’s strategy. Warnings are headed your way.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Ed Clark and his team of experts helped us to look at the assets of this province in order to leverage them. We’ve made a decision that investing in infrastructure in this province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nipissing is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —is critical for the future economic well-being of Ontario.

Automotive industry

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Over the summer, the city of Windsor lost a bid for the new Jaguar Land Rover plant. The mayor of Windsor, when asked what Windsor could have done differently, said, “It wasn’t Windsor, it wasn’t Essex, it wasn’t our region, but there were other factors ... beyond our control” that created “a competitive disadvantage.”

The factors outside of Windsor that created the competitive disadvantage were the policies of this Liberal government.

Interjection.

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

Carry on, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, these conditions created by the Liberal government are killing jobs in Ontario. When will the Premier change her approach to make sure we create a competitive economy in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The 15,000 jobs that were—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —in the last seven months, 15,000 new manufacturing jobs in Ontario, and two years in a row, Ontario has been the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment.

The investments we are making, the conditions we are creating in Ontario, the supports that we are giving to industry, whether it is in electricity rates, to allow them to have a reduced rate so that they can be more competitive, or whether it’s the direct supports that, quite frankly, the opposition has always objected to—they have never supported the notion that we need to partner with business and make sure that we allow them to thrive, allow them to expand and allow them to become advanced manufacturers, in the case of manufacturing. That’s the kind of condition that we are creating.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: No one is asking for a handout; they just want the sector to be competitive in Ontario. The reality is that we’ve lost 43,000 auto jobs on the watch of this government. Windsor is a city that relies on manufacturing jobs. Instead of listening to municipalities, the Premier is making it harder and harder for municipalities to compete. Now the Premier wants to hammer municipalities with not only skyrocketing energy prices but the cap-and-trade tax and the payroll tax.

My question is why does the Premier continue to make it impossible for municipalities and cities like Windsor to succeed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I very much value our good-working relationship with the municipalities of this province. There are 444 municipalities. Our ministers and our members travel the province. We meet with municipal leaders. I believe that it is extremely important for the provincial government to have a good, open working relationship with the municipalities, which is why we have put in place, for example, the Community Infrastructure Fund. It is a direct result of feedback that we got from municipalities on the need to invest in roads and bridges.

It’s why there’s a new Connecting Links Program, to deal with the realities of roads that municipalities can’t afford to keep up. We need that support.

The member opposite is part of a party that has not supported the relationship that we have with municipalities—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s not about photo ops around the province. Whether it’s in Windsor or Oshawa or any plant in between, it’s the responsibility of government to create the conditions to be competitive, to create the conditions to create jobs.

You have heard me say again and again that the auto sector is as important to Ontario as oil is to Alberta or potash is to Saskatchewan. Yet for 12 years, the Liberal government has made it harder and harder for the auto sector to succeed in Ontario. Now it’s been reported that Buicks won’t be made at GM in Oshawa after 2017.

So, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is has she entirely given up on the auto sector and manufacturing in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, this party will never give up on the auto sector in this province. We’ll continue to make the investments that we need to make. But the party that that member purports to lead gave up on the auto sector in 2009—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to remind all members again—you have on your desk a reminder—you’re speaking to the Chair.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, through you to the party opposite—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is not appropriate. You’re speaking to the Chair, just to me. You’re not speaking to them.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure how to respond to that, except to say, Mr. Speaker, we have made $1.6 billion in investments in manufacturing. That’s brought $15 billion of investment to this province and 60,000 manufacturing jobs. I beseech the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, look at the members around you. None of them—

Interjections.

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

The purpose of my interjection was to allow us to bring the temperature down. It’s not helpful when others continue to make it rise.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That’s not a good omen for me, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The people of Ontario own Hydro One, but the Premier is plowing ahead with the privatization scheme and keeping owners in the dark. She has held no public consultations and no public hearings. She’s eliminated oversight by our watchdogs, like the Auditor General, and she’s shed no light whatsoever on any evidence at all to back up her scheme.

Speaker, why is this Premier determined to sell off Hydro One with no transparency and no public scrutiny by the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s just go over what we have done and understand that the reason that we are going through this process is that we must invest in infrastructure around the province. There are infrastructure needs in every part of this province, and the two go hand in hand. We’re broadening the ownership of Hydro One in order to be able to leverage that asset, retain 40% ownership, keep the regulatory controls in place and keep the process whereby hydro rates are set now by the Ontario Energy Board, but at the same time to allow us to invest in the infrastructure that is needed.

That is what we have talked about in our 2014 budget. It’s what we talked about in our platform when we went to the people of Ontario. We held technical briefings for both opposition parties. We talked about it throughout the election campaign. We made it very clear that we were looking at assets to leverage them in order to be able to invest in infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Every day, the Liberals’ powerful friends are working to seal the deal on this $9-billion privatization. Every day, the Premier refuses to be open and accountable to the people of Ontario, and every day, she ignores the fact that this Liberal government still has no right to sell off our Hydro One. How can this Premier actually think she is entitled to privatize Hydro One with no public support, no public mandate and no public scrutiny?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said in this House, we have worked very hard to make sure that the protections that must be in place for the people of Ontario are in place and that the people of Ontario retain enough control of Hydro One that they can, for example, remove the board; the government can remove the board. Major decisions that will be made by the board have to have two-thirds support, and the government will have—the people of Ontario will have—40% control on that board. Those protections, we have put in place.

What I would say to the leader of the third party is this: Given that she purports to understand the needs of this province, how can she so underestimate the need to invest in infrastructure that she would say, “Stop building; stop investing,” just at a time when we need that economic driver?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over generations, Ontarians have built our hydro system. Over generations, we’ve made sure that Ontarians are in charge—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over generations, we’ve made sure that Ontarians are in charge and in control, because that is important. That is important to the families and to the businesses of this province.

But now this Premier is responsible for the biggest rollback of accountability in the history of Ontario’s power system. She is selling off Hydro One with no mandate, with no hearings, with no popular and public support, no public oversight. Will this Premier finally admit that she sees openness and transparency as the biggest threat to her privatization scheme?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that we have put in place protections. We have brought in Denis Desautels, the former AG of Canada, to oversee the IPO. She knows that Hydro One will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: But what the leader of the third party, I think, would like people to believe is that Hydro One is the same company as it was 40 years ago. What she hasn’t been saying is that we already have a mixed system, that there already are many, many people in this province who are not served by—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The system is already mixed, Mr. Speaker. There already are private companies, municipal utilities, who have the responsibility for distribution and transmission. I think that is a nuance that she has chosen to ignore as she talks about what we are doing. She also is choosing to ignore the fact that we are investing in infrastructure.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: News flash to the Premier: It was public 40 years ago and it is public now. She’s the one who is changing that.

My question to the Premier is quite direct. She likes to say that she had a choice to make, that somehow this is all about just a choice she had to make, but Ontarians know that a choice between public hydro and transit and infrastructure investment is a false choice. The truth is that the Premier could have made better choices to fund transit and infrastructure. She could have made the kinds of choices that New Democrats have been calling for; for example, restoring fair corporate taxes in the province of Ontario and closing new corporate tax loopholes that this Liberal government put in place for CEOs to write off the HST on their luxury box seats.

So here’s the real question: Why is this Premier choosing to protect the interests of her powerful friends instead of the interests of the public?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. In case he didn’t think I noticed, I finally figured it out: The member from Newmarket–Aurora is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we just got an insight into the philosophy of the leader of the third party. She would like us to move back 140 years when nobody needed broadband and when there were no transit needs in many of our urban municipalities. We’re not going to live 140 years ago. We’ve moved on and we need to make the investments that are needed in 2015 going forward.

The fact is 24% of the province’s distribution is delivered by Hydro One. It is a mixed company. It is very different; it’s a mixed system. It’s very different than it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 140 years ago. We’re in 2015. We need to make the investments that are needed in 2015 and that are needed for 2020 and 2030. If the leader of the third party doesn’t want to come with us, that’s her prerogative, but the people of Ontario need those investments.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s only my second.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier is making the wrong decisions for families, businesses and for the future of the province of Ontario. She is plowing ahead with the sale of Hydro One even though Ontarians overwhelmingly reject this scheme. She’s removing public oversight. She’s rolling back accountability in our electricity system. This is not the right direction.

She is using a false choice—a false choice—between public hydro and infrastructure investment to deliberately cater to her small group of powerful friends. How can this Premier put the best interests of her friends ahead of the best interests of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I’m sorry, but by my “powerful friends,” I don’t know whether the leader of the third party means the mom who needs to get on LRT in order to be able to pick up her kids from daycare, or whether she means the young family in Barrie that have jobs in Toronto and want to be able to go back and forth, or whether she means the family in Hamilton who needs to get across the city in decent time.

If that’s who she means by my “powerful friends,” they are powerful; they’re the people of Ontario. They need the investment in infrastructure, and we’re going to provide it for them.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s easy for this Premier to make those kinds of comments. If they are so damn powerful, she should listen to them and not sell off Hydro One.

This Premier had a choice to make, and we know exactly what she decided to do. She could have kept her promise—because she made it—to keep Hydro One in public hands, but she chose to break that promise. She could have been open and transparent every single step of the way, but she chose to keep the people of Ontario in the dark. Even better, she could have found smart ways to fund transit and infrastructure like restoring fair corporate taxes and closing loopholes for corporations, but she chose to sell off a public asset—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence is warned.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —that belongs to all Ontarians.

Why does this Premier keep choosing to put the interests of her small group of powerful friends ahead of the best interests of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s be clear that the leader of the third party has put forward one alternative, and that is only to increase corporate taxes. That is the only thing she has put forward. What she is saying is that she is proposing that she would raise corporate taxes enough so that we could pay for all of the infrastructure: the Barrie line, the Kitchener line, a billion dollars for the Hamilton LRT, the new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, Highway 11/17 four-laning between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, the second phase of the LRT in Ottawa and the EA for high-speed rail—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Hamilton Mountain, you are warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —from Toronto through London to Windsor. All of that, she would fund through increases in corporate taxes. Well, I would put to her, Mr. Speaker, that if she were to do that, then the whole discussion about the economic competitiveness and viability of this province would change. We would not be drawing direct investment—

Interjection.

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

New question.

Pesticides

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture: 28,000 members of the Grain Farmers of Ontario have been forced by your government to go to court, seeking an immediate stay of your regulation banning neonics. Peggy Brekveld, a Thunder Bay dairy and crop farmer, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, charges that your regulations are unworkable: “We will be required to have a certified crop adviser inspect our fields ... there’s only about 100 CCAs that are qualified to do these inspections.”

Minister, your regs question the integrity of consulting agronomists, disqualifying those who work with the seed trade. Where are you going to find sufficient crop advisers who are not associated with Ontario’s seed trade sector?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for his question this morning. Clearly, over the last little while, we’ve identified four key areas that have put stresses on pollinators in the province of Ontario.

We’ve identified that the last two winters have been extremely cold, which has an impact on our pollinators in Ontario. We do know that there are mites that invade beehives in the province of Ontario, the varroa mite. Thirdly, there is the management of hives in the province of Ontario, those hives that are professionally managed and those hives that are managed by hobbyists in that area. Fourthly, we do know that the blanket use of neonic application in the province of Ontario is having an impact on the health of pollinators right across the province of Ontario.

Just recently, Mr. Speaker, we’ve embarked, along with our agricultural partners, on a general pollinator strategy for the province of Ontario. It’s the way to go forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just want to remind, as I’ve reminded others, to make sure that it’s through the Chair.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the regs: Farmers do want to know just who is standing up for farming at the cabinet table. Amended reg 63/09 indicates that all treated corn and soybean seed is now registered as a class 12 pesticide; it characterizes a treated seed as a pesticide and therefore regulates the seed, not the pesticide. It’s unacceptable. It’s unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. It will cause significant and irrevocable economic damage without any clear evidence of any off-setting benefits for pollinators—yet another reason farmers realize that your regulatory process is simply unworkable.

Minister, why would you, as Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture, regulate a seed itself as a pesticide?

But, thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote some people who are agronomists in this area. Greg Stewart, the official agronomist for Maizex Seeds, has said about purchasing untreated seed when needed: “It’s not too difficult.”

DeKalb agronomist Bob Thirlwall said the process isn’t as onerous as some growers think. “We’ve talked about it with a few growers: Is it any more work than the paperwork for having insecticide applied by airplane? We decided it’s actually less work.”

Ken Currah, a Pride agronomist: “We are encouraging growers to have that discussion with their agronomists.” What acres need it? What acres don’t?

This is what I’m hearing from grassroots farmers in the province of Ontario.

Teachers

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. For more than a year, this Liberal government has failed to reach new collective agreements with all of our dedicated teachers and education workers. Last week the government failed again, and talks collapsed with elementary teachers.

The only way for this government to reach a deal is to be at the table, taking

part in genuine and meaningful negotiations. When will this Premier send her minister back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The Minister of Education says that it takes thousands of hours of negotiating to reach tentative deals, but to make that happen, to reach those agreements, the government needs to show leadership and actually be at the bargaining table. Once it’s at the table, the government needs to negotiate in a genuine and meaningful way rather than trying to impose deals just to help the federal Liberal Party.

Why is the Premier refusing to get back to the bargaining table and get back to real negotiations?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I have no idea where the notion has come from, raised by the NDP and the union, that this has anything to do with the federal government. The reason that we have put a complete package before the elementary teachers is because they have been on strike since May 11, and that has caused disruption to our students. Our students have not had their EQAO test. They didn’t get their report cards. Their parents aren’t meeting their teachers. They’re not having the field trips they would normally have.

We want the disruption to stop, and that’s why we tried to speed up the process with the elementary teachers: because we want to get the elementary public system back to the way it should be. We are absolutely willing to talk about how to fine-tune the deal.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Associate Minister of Finance. Over the summer, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to many people in the riding of Beaches–East York about the issues that concern them the most. What I’ve heard is that there is a growing anxiety about retirement security. Quite simply, the CPP does not work for seniors who do not have outside, independent third-party pension plans.

Many in my riding, particularly those in their 20s and 30s, do not have access to a workplace pension and are concerned about their futures. They worry that they will not be able to maintain the same standard of living in retirement, or they may outlive their savings. And they know seniors who are suffering from exactly that situation.

That is why so many Ontarians are very supportive of our government’s plan to bring in the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. My constituents are very eager to learn more about the plan and how it affects them.

Over the summer, I know that the Premier and the minister announced details about the ORPP, and I would like if the minister would please explain to us the new details of the plan.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for that very important question.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario is leading on this important issue. We are creating the ORPP to help close the retirement savings gap. Our goal is that by 2020, every employee in Ontario would be part of the ORPP or a comparable workplace pension plan.

When we talk about a comparable plan, we mean registered workplace pension plans, like defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. These plans will need to meet minimum contribution thresholds and provide locked-in benefits. With these thresholds, we can confidently say that workers will be able to achieve a similar benefit provided by the ORPP.

We developed our approach by listening to people. We developed our approach by listening to business. This design ensures that all Ontarians can have access to the retirement security that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you to the minister for that fine answer. She’s doing an excellent job in giving us the security in retirement that we all need. I know that the constituents in my riding of Beaches–East York will be glad to hear about the specific steps our government is taking to ensure all Ontarians will have access to secure retirement.

In recent months, I’ve also spoken with many local business owners about the ORPP, and many of them are very pleased to see that the government is introducing this plan that will give an affordable way for them to provide their employees with a meaningful pension.

In these meetings, businesses have emphasized the importance of having time to plan for the introduction of the ORPP. I know the minister has engaged with business extensively and that they were active participants in that consultation process on the ORPP earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, again through you to the Associate Minister of Finance: Will the Minister please outline the steps our government is taking to help businesses plan for the introduction of the ORPP?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the hard-working member for that important question.

The Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, the ORPP, is an investment in a secure retirement future for all Ontarians. That’s not just individuals; that’s business as well. Over the past several months, I’ve met with representatives from across the business community throughout Ontario. We heard that businesses and employees need time to plan. That is why we announced that we will be enrolling employers in stages, beginning with the largest employers in 2017. This coincides with expected reductions in EI premiums. We also announced that we will be phasing in contributions over three years.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said our approach is “a step in the right direction.” Through the ORPP and its implementation, we are investing in our collective futures, which is good for all businesses in Ontario.

Taxation

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, in January, this Liberal government made significant changes to Ontario’s estate administration tax. The $143-million death tax on grieving families is nothing more than another cash grab.

Minister, one of the changes made is to force estate trustees, usually the children of the deceased or the grieving widow, to provide a detailed list of their loved one’s assets and a description of their value to you within days of losing their loved one. Minister, where is this government’s compassion?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, interesting question, but let me be very clear. To you, Mr. Speaker—directly to you, because I don’t think they listen on the other side—it reads as follows: The government has not introduced a new tax on estates. It has not changed the amount of estate administration tax payable or the way that this tax is calculated. All we are doing is ensuring—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will withdraw.

Mr. Grant Crack: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the regulation ensures that the government has the information needed to perform the audits and verify that the correct amounts of the tax have been paid. All we’re doing is ensuring that the procedure takes place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Well, not very much compassion there.

Back to the Minister of Finance: Family farms or small businesses can give rise to a death tax amounting to many tens of thousands of dollars. This is a debt that, when coupled with the income tax levied on capital gains, may force the next generation to sell the family business.

Minister, you’ve already collected a lifetime of taxes on these assets. The Liberal view may be that small businesses and family farms are nothing more than money laundering operations for the rich, but we in the PC caucus recognize how vital Ontario’s entrepreneurs and farmers are to Ontario’s economy.

Minister, I ask you, is there no better way to balance the books in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

I would offer this as advice: third person, which means you’re not talking to the minister; you’re talking to the Chair, just as a reminder. We’re going to try to get that done right this time.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite and the PC caucus should well understand the process because it was they who introduced the EAT in 1998. They introduced this administrative tax. All we’re saying is that the regulation does not change the court process. The EAT is collected by the court staff, and the new requirements will not change the court process or the amount of tax payable.

They’re the ones who introduced it. We’re just making certain that it gets implemented correctly, that’s all.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, we learned that a top Infrastructure Ontario executive had admitted to defrauding York University. Instead of being fired, he was put in charge of procuring a stadium for York University. We also learned that, as early as January 2012, Infrastructure Ontario’s chief risk officer knew about the fraud, but the fraud remained a secret outside of Infrastructure Ontario.

Today, we learned that CEO David Livingston knew about the fraud: the same David Livingston who became Dalton McGuinty’s chief of staff and is being investigated by the OPP for his role in a cover-up.

Yesterday, when I asked the minister if David Livingston knew about the fraud, he refused to answer. Did the minister really not know, or did Infrastructure Ontario keep that information away from him as well?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the member’s recollection of his question and the answer yesterday isn’t entirely accurate. The fact is, the member did ask me a question yesterday and I responded that, to the best of our knowledge, the board had not been informed of the particular circumstances. That remains the case.

We take this matter seriously, though. It is a serious matter and it’s one that I think we need to take very seriously. Infrastructure Ontario has appointed an independent law firm to review this matter, to review the time that this individual was employed at Infrastructure Ontario, as well as the circumstances of his departure. There is also a forensic audit firm that’s been hired to take a look at the transactions that have occurred. And I, as well, am in the process of retaining a third-party special adviser to be our eyes and ears over this process at the same time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: We now have evidence that senior officials at Infrastructure Ontario covered up the fact that one of its top executives had admitted to fraud. David Livingston says that he knew about the fraud and that he told the Infrastructure Ontario board. Board members, however, deny this completely. Someone is not telling the truth; we just don’t know who.

Last December, the minister asked us to trust Infrastructure Ontario when it claimed, without evidence, that $8 billion spent on public-private partnerships wasn’t a waste of money. Now the minister wants us to trust Infrastructure Ontario to investigate its own cover-up.

Will the minister call for a truly independent investigation of the culture of cover-ups that evidently exists within Infrastructure Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Rhetoric notwithstanding, this is a serious matter and we’re doing, I think, what we need to do to get to the bottom of it. I said yesterday and I say today, there are unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of this individual’s departure and there are some unanswered questions that we want to ensure are looked into, and that’s surrounding his activities while he was with Infrastructure Ontario.

The actions in question—the alleged actions that this individual took with York University—were outside of his role with Infrastructure Ontario, but out of an abundance of caution and prudence, we want to make sure that during his time at Infrastructure Ontario there were no further anomalies that can be identified. That’s why we’re taking the third-party actions that we’re taking.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last month, I was pleased to be with you in Campbellford for an announcement of almost $400,000 over two years for a project that will offer additional in-home support for people with developmental disabilities in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. This community hub residential model is a collaboration between Community Living Campbellford/Brighton and Campbellford Memorial Hospital and will provide support to aging individuals with developmental disabilities in surrounding rural areas to allow for their continued independent living.

Minister, this project is part of a broader Developmental Services Housing Task Force initiative that you mentioned in the House earlier this year. Can the minister please provide us with an update on the recent work of the housing task force and the progress made for residential services in Ontario?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for the question. I was really delighted to be in Campbellford last month to announce the funding for the community hub residential model, and also to be introduced to so many of my ministry’s local stakeholders in the member’s riding, showing, really, how deeply rooted he is in his community.

I was also in Smiths Falls, Lanark county, to announce a project which will provide residential supports to developmentally disabled adults with complex medical needs so that they can also live independently.

These projects are recommended by the Developmental Services Housing Task Force and are part of the recent announcement of 12 community-based housing initiatives for adults with developmental disabilities. Our government has committed up to $6 million over the next two years for demonstration or research projects, which includes $3.47 million to support these 12 recently announced projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to thank the minister for outlining the work that this government and your ministry have been doing. In my conversations with residents and leaders in my community, it’s very clear the importance that access to residential services has on the lives of the individuals living with disabilities and their families. There continues to be need for more creative residential options and day support for respite service. This is a struggle that individuals, families and the development services sector have known for a long time. However, the government’s $810-million investment is making a tremendous difference in the lives of thousands of Ontarians.

Can the minister please elaborate on how efforts like the Development Services Housing Task Force will work toward creating more opportunities for Ontarians who value inclusion, choice and independence for these vulnerable individuals in need?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We know that many individuals with developmental disabilities have very unique needs and that there is a demand for a broader range of housing solutions that address these individualized needs. Our challenge isn’t just about finding more supports; it’s about finding the right kinds of supports for each individual. The Developmental Services Housing Task Force was created to help find and encourage inclusive and creative housing solutions which would expand the options and choices available to adults with developmental disabilities.

I’d like to thank the hard work of the agencies, the families, the community partners and the housing task force members. We’ve had an opportunity to expand our knowledge and learn how creative partnerships can help us provide new housing support options. A second call for proposals for additional projects will be issued later this year, and I look forward to future creative partnerships that we can learn from, to see if we can replicate these across the province to help more people in the community.

Mining industry

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, the Fraser Institute’s annual survey of mining companies has again placed Ontario near the back of the pack for mining jurisdictions. On the investment attractiveness index, this year Ontario fell nine places to 23rd in the world. The high cost of electricity in Ontario is continually cited as a key contributing factor in this slide.

This spring, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario revealed that the hydro customer was ignored in your government’s plan to sell off a majority stake of Hydro One. Members of AMPCO employ thousands of people across northern Ontario.

Minister, can you guarantee that the sale of Hydro One will not lead to increased electricity costs for industrial consumers in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: As the member knows well, Ontario remains the top jurisdiction for mineral exploration in the country, if not across the continent. We are very, very proud of that despite the challenges that we do see related to commodity pricing. The fact is that indeed we are also very proud of the fact that, although we recognize the challenge of energy pricing, earlier this year we made the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program a permanent program, which has been a tremendous help for the resource-based sector in terms of reducing those energy costs.

May I say, with the time I have left, we are also still seeing, despite the challenges that are there, the number of mines in the province of Ontario that are continuing to open up being a real positive—we’re seeing operations, certainly, in Red Lake in terms of Rubicon Minerals and in terms of the Cochenour expansion and the New Gold expansion, which I know the member knows well about. We are very, very proud of that and looking forward to—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Minister. And you well know that the NEER program only applies to a handful of companies.

Again to the minister: We’ve seen this story before. When jurisdictions become uncompetitive, companies pull out and take local jobs with them. When Xstrata Copper pulled up stakes in Timmins only to move across the border to Quebec, they cited uncompetitive hydro rates as a key motivating factor in the move. Northern Ontario lost 700 good-paying jobs. Minister, will the sale of Hydro One lead to more stories like that of Xstrata Copper and more jobs lost in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s actually rather unfortunate to hear the members who are talking down what is really obviously a very positive industry in terms of the economy in northern Ontario. When we see the fact that mineral production in the province reached over $11 billion—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —in 2014, up from $5.3 billion about 10 years previously, that’s obviously a very positive sign.

We don’t deny that there are challenges. Certainly we all know about the challenge—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I ask the member, as I have asked others: You are addressing the Chair.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Excuse me, Speaker. I thought I was looking at you. I now will indeed look at you and point out the fact that we continue to be very, very enthused about the positive opportunities in the mining sector.

Certainly the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program is helping major resource sector producers in both the mining and forestry side reduce their energy costs, which is allowing them to continue to make mines open up in the province of Ontario, which we are continuing to see. We’ve very excited about the opportunities in the mining sector. Keep working—

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

New question.

Child care

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. This Premier’s record on child care just keeps getting worse, and families across Ontario are paying the price. Ontario has no comprehensive plan for child care: no targets, no timelines. Most recently, the Premier backtracked on her support for $15-a-day child care.

The Premier has stood on the sidelines while public child care centres close their doors in communities like Sarnia, Sudbury, Windsor, London; Peel region closed their 12 regional centres as well. Now, five public child care centres are at risk of closure in Waterloo region. Each of these five child care centres has attained the triple gold standard of the Raising the Bar program for the last 12 years. They serve 250 children and their families. Every time we lose a public child care centre, we lose quality care for kids in this province and good jobs in our communities.

Why is this Premier doing nothing to stop the closure of quality child care centres and doing nothing to stand up for child care that Ontario families so desperately need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I’m very pleased to tell you that, in fact, I think the member opposite has misrepresented the data. In fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister will withdraw.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Withdraw.

Interjection: Misinterpreted.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Misinterpreted, perhaps. But let me tell you what the data are and then people can argue over how they feel about that.

Since 2003, our government has almost doubled the provincial spending on child care. We are now up to over $1 billion in spending on child care. What that has allowed us to do is increase the number of licensed child care spaces in Ontario by 70%, so that we now have added 130,000 additional licensed child care spaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Premier: On Monday, when our leader asked the Premier why she refuses to support making child care more affordable, the Premier said, “We have no understanding of what it would mean to the people of Ontario.” Well, parents across Ontario know exactly what quality, affordable child care means. It means not being stuck on a wait-list for a spot you can afford—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. D