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

December 1, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Dec-01 (PDF)

L038 - Thu 1 Dec 2016 / Jeu 1er déc 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 December 2016 Jeudi 1 er décembre 2016

Orders of the Day

Order of business

289619 Ontario Limited Act, 2016

289619 Ontario Limited Act, 2016

Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd. Act, 2016

Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd. Act, 2016

Stoneridge Development Corporation Act, 2016

Stoneridge Development Corporation Act, 2016

Simple Stopwatch Inc. Act, 2016

Simple Stopwatch Inc. Act, 2016

All About Water Ltd. Act, 2016

All About Water Ltd. Act, 2016

Sound Bay Properties Inc. Act, 2016

Sound Bay Properties Inc. Act, 2016

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Climate change

Hydro rates

Health care

Government’s record

Government advertising

Parental rights

Health care

Health care

Access to information

Mental health and addiction services

Government’s record

Forest industry

Climate change

Roger Parent

Deferred Votes

Building Ontario Up for Everyone Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 visant à favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario pour tous (mesures budgétaires)

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Christmas Tree Day

Windsor Residence for Young Men

Consumer protection

Community newspaper

Bridge rehabilitation

Humber College

Ontario Municipal Board

Toronto FC

Mental health and addiction services

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Volunteer Day / Journée internationale des volontaires

Petitions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Vente d’alcool

Hydro rates

Dental care

Highway ramps

Privatization of public assets

Energy policies

Dental care

Privatisation des biens publics

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Support for Israel

Colleges Week

Putting Voters First (Election Amendment) Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux électeurs (modification de la Loi électorale)

Support for Israel

Colleges Week

Putting Voters First (Election Amendment) Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux électeurs (modification de la Loi électorale)

Support for Israel

Private members’ public business

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The President of the Treasury Board is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

President?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I move that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be called consecutively and that the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills be put immediately without debate:

Pr47, Pr48, Pr49, Pr50, Pr52, Pr53; and

That Mr. Bailey may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr48 on behalf of Mr. Hardeman; and

That Mr. Colle may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr49 on behalf of Mr. Dong; and

That Mr. Colle may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr50 on behalf of Mrs. Martins; and

That Mr. Bailey may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr53 on behalf of Mr. Walker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Sandals moves that orders for second reading—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Agreed? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

289619 Ontario Limited Act, 2016

Mr. Colle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive 289619 Ontario Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

289619 Ontario Limited Act, 2016

Mr. Colle moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive 289619 Ontario Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd. Act, 2016

Mr. Bailey, on behalf of Mr. Hardeman, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd. Act, 2016

Mr. Bailey, on behalf of Mr. Hardeman, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive Liberty Tire Recycling Canada I Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Stoneridge Development Corporation Act, 2016

Mr. Colle, on behalf of Mr. Dong, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr49,

An Act to revive Stoneridge Development Corporation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Stoneridge Development Corporation Act, 2016

Mr. Colle, on behalf of Mr. Dong, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr49,

An Act to revive Stoneridge Development Corporation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Simple Stopwatch Inc. Act, 2016

Mr. Colle, on behalf of Mrs. Martins, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr50,

An Act to revive Simple Stopwatch Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Simple Stopwatch Inc. Act, 2016

Mr. Colle, on behalf of Mrs. Martins, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr50,

An Act to revive Simple Stopwatch Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

All About Water Ltd. Act, 2016

Ms. DiNovo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive All About Water Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

All About Water Ltd. Act, 2016

Ms. DiNovo moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive All About Water Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Sound Bay Properties Inc. Act, 2016

Mr. Bailey, on behalf of Mr. Walker, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr53,

An Act to revive Sound Bay Properties Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Sound Bay Properties Inc. Act, 2016

Mr. Bailey, on behalf of Mr. Walker, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr53,

An Act to revive Sound Bay Properties Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 30, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings had the floor.

The member has the floor.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to speak here again today. Yesterday, this bill was sprung on us without any notice, really, from the government. That’s an unacceptable practice, in my view. This is a comprehensive piece of omnibus legislation that actually requires our critic and our critic staff to examine all the layers of the bill that have been presented.

It’s funny, because some bills that come from the government are very thin on details. There’s just a shell of a law, and then regulation is added after the fact far away from this Legislature by bureaucrats in the ministry. This bill actually has some meat on the bone that needed to be examined. I didn’t think it was appropriate yesterday that the government sprung this bill on us without any notice. The fact that our critic was unavailable to respond to the bill yesterday was important to us. We should have our critic responding to government bills.

That’s why we decided to use the legislative tool that we had and ring some bells and join the protestors who were out on the front lawn, actually, Madam Speaker. There were thousands of protestors out on the front lawn of the Legislature, just the latest group of protestors upset with the direction of the Liberal government in Ontario. We’ve seen large groups—yesterday, skilled trades workers—who were out on the front lawn.

But we’ve seen all kinds of different protests over the last several months, whether it’s education workers or families dealing with autism or, of course, the thousands of people who are struggling to pay their electricity bills. They’ve all been out there protesting this government’s direction.

Then yesterday we had the—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: Yes, don’t forget the demonstration schools. Thank you to the member from Dufferin–Caledon for reminding me. That’s a pet project of mine.

Yesterday we saw more examples of the waste, mismanagement and scandal of this Liberal government in the Auditor General’s report. Clearly, this is a government that’s lacking in direction.

There are some issues with this bill that has been put forward by the government all of a sudden. Bill 68 is the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act. We started to dissect it a bit yesterday. I have about 12 minutes remaining in my time and will take a closer look at what is in this bill and how it contradicts some things that the government has changed in other pieces of legislation that they have brought forward this fall.

I know that the member from Oxford, who is our critic, looks forward to really getting deep into the issues of this bill when he has the opportunity in his one-hour leadoff to examine this latest piece of legislation that has been put on the table.

A few months ago, the House actually passed a bill to change the way that municipal elections are conducted in this province, as I’m sure you’re aware. At that time, the government continually congratulated itself on the steps that it was taking to clean up fundraising practices around municipal elections. In this bill, however, and I think it should be pointed out, the government increases the municipal campaign donation limit to $1,200. So while they’re reducing in other areas, they’re increasing limits for municipal elections.

You might think that was done to line up the municipal donation limit with the provincial limit, even though that has never been the case before, and you would be right. But the government knew it would be amending provincial limits in the spring, so it could have amended the municipal bill last spring when it was changing how we conduct municipal elections in this province.

There is a

schedule in Bill 68 that actually seeks to amend a

section of a bill currently being struck out and replaced in another piece of legislation. Were this bill to pass before that one, that bill would end up striking the amendments made by this one. So we have competing pieces of legislation with this bill.

The government has touted their extensive, summer-long 2015 tour of consultations on this bill, and our party’s critic, the member from Oxford, will be dealing with the content of many of those submissions in his leadoff, which is soon to come. I find it interesting, though, that the government is introducing the ability for councillors to participate in meetings electronically, given that the last time this was introduced in a bill it was actually government members who removed this

section from the bill at committee, proving that some habits haven’t changed since 2003: It’s still possible for a Liberal to be against something before they’re in favour of it. It kind of reminds me of the Hydro One sale.

This was supposedly done for large rural municipalities like Hastings Highlands or Tweed in my riding; they’re large rural municipalities. This would allow councillors who may live in Queensborough to electronically attend a meeting of council or a committee meeting in Tweed, or councillors who may live near Combermere to attend meetings in Maynooth, which sounds like a good idea. It actually does sound like a good idea. However, you’re forgetting one thing: In large swaths of rural Ontario, there simply isn’t the broadband Internet to allow that to happen.

Now, I commend Hastings county, and I commend the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus and the provincial and federal governments for contributing to a large project in eastern Ontario, the EORN project as it’s known, the Eastern Ontario Regional Network. A lot of money has been spent over the last five years in trying to light up, as they say, homes and businesses across eastern Ontario.

Keep in mind, eastern Ontario is the size of a lot of small countries in Europe. It’s a large area, and there are a lot of different geographical obstacles to overcome when it comes to the topography, especially when you’re up in the hills in McArthurs Mills in Carlow Mayo township. You’ve got a lot of beautiful scenery up there, but it doesn’t make getting Internet to those homes and businesses the easiest thing in the world to do.

The other thing that happened since EORN started that project in trying to light up Internet in homes in the rural countryside is that something called Netflix came along, which is using an awful lot more Internet capacity than maybe they had planned for when they started the project of the Eastern Ontario Regional Network. What they have to do is go back and build up the capital projects even further, so that there is that capacity there for Internet in rural Ontario so that these councillors, if they want to be able to sit in their home office and participate in a council meeting, could do so.

The other thing that is very important as the objective, I believe, of this bill is that a lot of times in rural Ontario, particularly in the winter months, we’re seeing roads that are impassable. There was evidence of this yesterday in the Auditor General’s report. Contracts have been given to companies that simply aren’t meeting the requirements of the contracts, and they still keep getting the contracts year after year. The fines that they’re supposed to be receiving are forgiven, and they actually end up giving them bonuses for impassable roads.

There were a lot of moments in the past where perhaps there was a council meeting on a Monday afternoon in Maynooth and the councillors simply couldn’t get to the Hastings Highlands offices. Perhaps they would have taken the opportunity to participate in that council meeting through the Internet via a teleconference, if they had that opportunity. This is just one example as well.

I think maybe this portion of the bill is well intended. I think it just shows the lack of a grip on what is actually happening in rural Ontario, where there simply isn’t the capacity for this to become a reality. I think it shows how out of touch this government can be when they’re drafting legislation, particularly on how it impacts rural parts of the province. I believe the stated rationale of this was always to make it easier for people in some large rural municipalities to attend council meetings.

The act also amends the City of Toronto Act with the same provision. Geographically, the city of Toronto isn’t all that large. It’s certainly not rural. Including the provision makes sense if you feel that Toronto should be treated the same as every other municipality, and that’s fair. It makes sense, as I said, when paired with the parental leave provision that’s included in this bill.

But pretending that the provision is being included largely to make life easier for councillors in large rural municipalities is laughable. I know that the people writing that line were thinking, “It gets cold up in north Hastings,” or some similar municipality in rural eastern, southwestern or northern Ontario. The roads aren’t very good. If you have ever driven Highway 62 north of Maynooth, then you know what kind of shape that road is in. If you’ve ever driven on County Road 49 in Prince Edward county, you know what kind of shape that road in rural Ontario is in.

That’s why Highway 62, in particular north of Maynooth, has always been an order paper question of mine. I want to know when the government is going to help Hastings Highlands fix that piece of highway that goes through their region. If it’s a really snowy day, you just might not chance that road.

Actually, what’s happening on that road now, for the people who live in Herschel or Monteagle townships in Hasting Highlands, is that road is being shut down at times, with load limits put on it. It’s causing real difficulty for industry in that area, particularly the logging industry that uses that road in the wintertime. The road is just disintegrating before the eyes of the roads crew in Hastings Highlands, and it really needs the help of the provincial and federal governments to fix that situation. I think I’ve probably emphasized that point enough for the purposes of this particular speech, though.

I’ll move on to a final piece of the bill. I think it needs to be discussed, particularly on this day. That’s

section 25 of

schedule 2 of the act. This act allows the city of Toronto to decide on how long its records are kept rather than the city’s independent auditor general.

There exists no reason to believe that the city is malicious in its intent with its record-keeping policy or that it intends to somehow shorten its retention so as to make access to information requests meaningless. There are no grounds to believe that. However, we have the experience of the last five years here, and in the last five years here we’ve seen a government abuse its independent officers in a way that few governments have ever done or dared to. We’ve seen a government that destroyed records with little regard for existing laws, much less amended ones.

These incidents establish a context under which this law comes before us, but they also clarify the role that independent officers are supposed to play in our Legislatures. If you watch the news at all, you’ll hear it said that we live in a post-fact or post-truth world. What our independent officers are supposed to do is act as guardians of reality. They act and they assess, absent the interference of government spin.

They are separate from the politics of this particular room, outside the outstretched arms of the great and growing government spin machine, particularly like the one we have here on the opposite side of the House. They’re here to tell us when something is out of bounds. With this government, they’ve done that well, and they did it yesterday with an over 1,000-page report from our Auditor General, pointing out the mismanagement and waste of this current government.

We see before us yet another bill that attacks the rights and responsibilities of oversight officers. It’s as if the arrogance which the government extends to so many of its constituents and to so many other members of the Legislature extends as well to the independent officers who are supposed to be a check on the government’s attempts to colour reality to suit their own purposes. It’s as if the Premier has decided that the problem with the Auditor General or the Financial Accountability Officer is that they just don’t understand what the Liberals are trying to do.

I remember on this day last year when the auditor informed Ontario what most of us already expected: that this government had so botched the electricity system that we were overpaying for power. Did the government then pledge to do better? No, they didn’t, Madam Speaker. They disputed the auditor’s figures. They didn’t even change their talking points. They still said the additional costs were entirely due to improving the system or getting off of coal—none of which addressed the substantive points of the auditor’s criticism.

They also ignored another major criticism—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Excuse me. I need to remind the member that he needs to speak to the bill, not about the auditor’s report, okay? So in your remaining minutes.

Mr. Todd Smith: It actually speaks to the bill, but since I am not allowed to speak to the bill, I’m going to move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Smith has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that it carry? I hear no.

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

I believe the nays have it. Okay.

Call in the members. It’s a five-minute bell.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): A 30-minute bell? Okay, call in the members. It’s now a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0923 to 0953.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Members, please take your seats.

Mr. Smith has moved adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 14; the nays are 32.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I declare the motion lost.

I return to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: You know, this is the festive season. I just thought it was only appropriate that we had some bells this morning to help us celebrate as we head into the final week of our legislative session. With everybody here, I just want to wish you all a very merry Christmas.

I look forward to the debate on this bill going forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I’m happy to add a few comments—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order. The member from Nickel Belt is about to start this round of debate, so please be respectful.

I return to the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. It was interesting to listen to the member. I want to focus on

schedule 4,

section 10 of the bill that deals with local services boards and read into the record a letter from the Local Services Board of Foleyet in my riding that goes as follows:

“Currently, the town of Foleyet is in a huge amount of debt (204k) to the Ontario Clean Water Agency for the work that was done at the water treatment plant.” The only way to pay for the clean water agency that has done the work is that everybody’s taxes have to be doubled. For example, if you currently pay a residential rate, which is $816.44, “you will pay $1,632.88 next year.” The businesses that currently pay $1,628.05 will pay $3,256.10. Vacant land goes from $157.73 to $453.72.

Why am I reading this into the record, Speaker? Because we have an opportunity with this bill that opens up the act under subsection 42(2) of the Northern Services Boards Act to make the local services boards more transparent.

We have no way to know where the money went. How come Foleyet is in such a huge debt?

I reached out to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, because they oversee local services boards. It’s like talking to a black hole. Nobody can tell me. The water treatment plant was upgraded. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines gave a huge grant for this upgrade to take place. The work was done. It was supposed to be balanced. Now they have this huge debt that nobody can understand.

We need to do better.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It’s good to be here this morning talking about the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act. I was listening to the member for Prince Edward–Hastings this morning. This was before the bells started ringing. I want to respond to something that he said. He made comments on efforts to modernize and update fundraising for provincial politicians. I might remind him that while committee was working on this—while work was under way—he walked out, refusing to participate in that important work.

Madam Speaker, what I would like to do in my time remaining is to address the part that focuses on ensuring that parents who serve as municipal councillors can take time off for pregnancy and parental leave.

Some quick background on how this piece came about: This was a private member’s bill that I brought forward a few weeks ago, which received unanimous consent and went off to committee.

Back in June of this year, my mayor, Berry Vrbanovic, in the city of Kitchener came to see me and explain that municipal councillors are entitled to a general leave of 12 weeks. However, there’s no specific mention of maternity or parental leave, and he didn’t really feel that 12 weeks was enough. He was advocating on behalf of Kitchener councillor Kelly Galloway-Sealock, who, by the way, just had her third child a few weeks ago.

Quite frankly, I was very surprised to hear this, that they’re not entitled to a pregnancy or maternity leave. I say to you, Madam Speaker, if we are trying to attract more women into local politics, how can we do this if local politics is not more family-friendly? Unlike provincial and federal politicians, who do have to travel, many of them will choose local politics because they figure it’s closer to home. But we need to find ways to find accommodations for women who do wish to serve at the local level. I think that this is one way to do it.

So I support this. Why? Because it’s 2016. I encourage my colleagues to do so also.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Again, good morning. There are particular features of this bill that I think we need to talk a little bit more broadly about.

One is new

section 23.6 of the act. It concerns the establishment of community councils by municipalities. Those of us—and there are many—who have served on either upper-tier councils or local councils know the importance of the establishment of these types of committees and the role they play in facilitating the type of openness and transparency that all municipalities would like to see. They’re also an opportunity for residents within those respective communities to add their voice to the discussion, whether it’s planning and development aspects, whether it has to do with the establishment of a tax rate or the inclusion of new services as an aspect of that discussion as well.

Another feature of the legislation that bears some highlighting is

section 147 of the act, which governs the provision of energy conservation programs by municipalities. Isn’t that timely, in view of the high electricity rates that municipalities are trying to cope with overall? What it is is a mechanism that allows municipalities to facilitate a broader engagement with their community in terms of the types of environmental features that they would like to see within their municipalities.

Finally, Speaker, I’ll take you to the revisions of

schedule 3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. This has been a very long-standing issue in municipalities, both from the perspective of what the definition should be and the provision of checks and balances in terms of what’s available to individual councillors, but also what’s available to the general public in bringing particular situations forward to councils related to—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am pleased to rise to offer some thoughts on the speech from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings about Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities.

Like the member for Prince Edward–Hastings, I would have appreciated an opportunity to hear the leadoff speech from the critic from our party, to hear the analysis of the comprehensive changes that are made in this bill. Unfortunately, this bill was dropped on this House with very short notice, and that has prevented us from doing the kind of research that we have an obligation to do as legislators, speaking on behalf of the people we represent.

I wanted to highlight one

section of the act in particular.

Section 259 of the current Municipal Act is amended to ensure that the office of a municipal councillor does not become vacated due to absences related to pregnancy or the birth or adoption of the member’s child. Certainly, as someone who served on a school board, school boards are governed by the same requirement that if you miss three meetings in a row, unless you have a motion from the board authorizing your absence, your seat is deemed vacant. So I would strongly urge that this

section apply to both school board trustees as well as to municipal councillors.

As we all know, we want to see more women step forward to run at all levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal. “Municipal” includes local councils and school boards. This is an important way that we can ensure that women are willing to step forward and serve locally.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return back to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings to wrap up.

Mr. Todd Smith: I thank my colleague from Whitby–Oshawa, who made some remarks on this bill, and also from London West and Nickel Belt.

The member from Kitchener Centre opposite: I’m not exactly sure what committee she thought I walked out on, but I was not a member of that committee. I know there are a couple of us who look similar, but I’ve never been a member of that committee—if she wants to correct her record on that one. It might have been Mr. Mantha; we get accused of being brothers all the time.

The member from London West gets it. The reason that on two mornings in a row we have rung bells is because the government has been playing tricks in this House. They told our critic that they weren’t going to be introducing this bill. They continue to play games with the House schedule. They’ll make an agreement and then a member of the Liberal government will stand up and will make a point of order that goes against everything that has been agreed to try to keep the peace in this Legislature, which isn’t necessarily the easiest thing in the world to do.

To combat that, we have very few tools at our disposal, and one of them this morning was to ring the bells. I think the government needs to get over the arrogance that they have. The arrogance that this government displays time and time again, whether it’s the Minister of Transportation going out yesterday to try and defend the Metrolinx performance in the Auditor General’s report and try to keep a straight face while doing it—they have to get over that arrogance and start to do what’s in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

I look forward to hearing our critic’s thoughts on this piece of legislation, when we get the opportunity to do that. It will probably be sometime next week. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity today.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: I believe we have unanimous consent to stand down the NDP lead on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Vanthof is seeking unanimous consent to stand down the lead on this particular bill. Is it the wishes of the House? Agreed? Agreed.

I return back to the member.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always a pleasure to speak in this House, today on Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities. But I will have to echo some of the concerns from the previous speaker from the Progressive Conservatives that the way this bill is being handled and scheduled isn’t actually conducive to a good debate.

As people here know—but perhaps if there is someone watching this—we do get together on a weekly basis, during House leaders’, to try to figure out a

schedule so the House can run fairly smoothly, so people can prepare. That’s why we stood down the lead. I believe that’s also why the PCs stood down their lead. The critic is responsible for drilling down into the bill with the researchers to find out what the good parts are, and it’s our role as the opposition to find out what the parts are that we disagree with.

When bills are scheduled like this, where no preparation time is allowed, when the

schedule isn’t followed, we end up with, quite frankly, a lesser quality of debate. My connection to this bill: I was a municipal councillor for many years, so I have some affinity to these issues. But I’m certainly not the critic and I certainly haven’t had time to talk to the researchers or to the critic about what this bill actually entails.

There are a few parts that caught my eye as to why we should be a little concerned or perhaps a lot concerned. The way a bill is set up, you have in the front of the bill—we all know this, but perhaps for the folks at home—explanatory notes. Those are basically the Coles Notes on what’s in the bill. I know when I look at a bill, that’s first thing I read so I can hone in on where I should be looking. One of the things in the explanatory notes that caught my eye is, just for example: “The

schedule amends the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”—fine—“Here are some highlights.” I had yet to see that, because usually the explanatory notes lay out what’s in the bill, but when it starts out with “Here are some highlights,” I get a bit concerned. Then I want to drill further in the bill. Again, I get even more concerned when this bill is just thrown on to the schedule. When the explanatory notes say, “Here are some highlights,” I get really concerned, because usually in a bill, it’s not the highlights that are the big problem; it’s the low lights.

M me France Gélinas: The details.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, the details. The devil is always in the details. Often we complain or we comment that bills aren’t prescriptive enough, but this one has a lot of meat in it and a lot of issues that perhaps will make a big difference to some places and not a big difference to others, but that have to be drilled down on.

The PC member—where is Mr. Smith from? He’s from Prince Edward–Hastings—brought up an issue that I hadn’t seen in the bill. I listened intently to his remarks regarding meetings via Internet. Interesting concept, but you know what? Where I live, we would just like to have Internet. That brings up a huge issue—and I have every right to talk about that within this bill, because that’s in this bill.

Perhaps one of the things we should be talking about is actually providing some kind of equivalent broadband service to the majority of the province, because in most places in rural Ontario—certainly in northern Ontario—that access isn’t there. And perhaps the direction of this bill is actually to help people who live farther away, in farther-flung municipalities. It’s a great idea, but if the capacity isn’t there, it’s kind of a waste of time.

Now, I’m sure it makes sense in some places here. I’m always amazed at the speed of the Internet here. We have pretty good Internet speeds in my more major centres, centres of 8,000 or 10,000 people, but what I have my kids call “country high-speed,” and that is not a compliment. Even if my councillors in my municipality wanted to take advantage of this, it’s not possible. I think that’s something that has to be brought up here. There are a lot of things in a lot of parts of the province that aren’t equal, that aren’t even—we’re not asking for equal, but they’re not even equivalent. This bill brings up some of them.

My colleague from Nickel Belt brought up that there are issues in this bill about northern services boards. I’m sure that most of the people in this House, and by far the vast majority of the people in the province—99.99% of the people in the province haven’t got a clue what a northern service board is; haven’t got a clue. Yet, for the people who live in those areas, that’s their system of government. In some areas, because of that, they probably have some advantages. There are some advantages to living under a local services board, but on the flip side, there are some huge, huge disadvantages.

I think it behooves us to take the time to actually look at that, what happens in local services boards.

Not all of my municipalities are local services boards, but a lot of them are. They face unique issues. Organized municipalities that are next to local services boards also face huge issues. In here, they have the right now to incur debt, to tax differently. Other legislation is talking about how the government is looking at changing the tax structure in unorganized townships. It would be interesting if we knew how these two fit together.

To most of the people in the province, that doesn’t really mean a lot. But for the people who live in unorganized—I don’t know what the actual term is; we call them unorganized townships.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: That is the term.

Mr. John Vanthof: That’s the term? That’s what they are in my neck of the woods, unorganized townships—which tend to become very organized at certain times.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: With certain issues.

Mr. John Vanthof: Perhaps this is one of those times that they need to become organized.

We need the time to actually be able to look at this bill in detail, and that’s one of the things that we haven’t been given. That’s why the Conservatives are ringing the bells. That’s why we are deferring our leads and doing everything we can to give us time to actually do our due diligence. Thank you, Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it is 10:15, I will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m sure members would like to know that Louis Kan, somebody who worked with us for a long time, is here in the members’ gallery, visiting the proceedings and watching the goings-on of what happens in this Legislature, now that he’s gone.

Mr. James J. Bradley: Joining us in the building today will be Mary Ann Edwards, who is receiving the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship for her work as the head of the Rankin Cancer Run in St. Catharines, which has raised millions of dollars to combat cancer.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome Doug DeRabbie and Elissa Hanna from the Ontario Association of Optometrists. We thank them for coming to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today I’d like to recognize Keith Currie, who is the freshly minted president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We welcome Keith here today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Jagdeep Singh, Swati Nanra, Amrik Singh, Arvinder Kaur and Jagroop Bhumber, all of whom are my constituents from my great riding of Markham–Unionville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure to introduce guests of page captain Reagan Smith: her mother, Tawnya Smith; her sister Payton Smith—a former page, I should say; and grandparents Carol and Dennis Hubble. They’re here in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome.

I also want to welcome Herb and Jill Koplowitz from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. They are here to have lunch. Welcome.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to welcome Mike and Mikayla Roy from Georgetown, who are visiting with us today. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I would like to introduce two guests from my riding today. Jackson Louws is serving as page captain today, so I would like to congratulate him.

I also would like to welcome a friend of mine, his father, Fred Louws, who is the principal at Ridgeway-Crystal Beach High School. He is also here today with his son. Welcome.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I would like to welcome all of the city of Toronto to a new era in soccer primacy with the win of Toronto FC yesterday over Montreal Impact. Bring on the Seattle Sounders. That’s coming next week.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m very proud and pleased to introduce two of my former elementary students who are all grown up and now in university. I would like to welcome Masawer and Mansoor Niazi, here today at Queen’s Park for the very first time.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I would like to welcome in the members’ east gallery today Brent Wootton, who is the associate vice-president business development, applied research, government and partner relations from Fleming College in Peterborough, Ontario.

Mr. Todd Smith: I know the member from Northumberland–Quinte West has introduced my relatives already, but Christmas wouldn’t be the same if I didn’t do it. My in-laws Dennis and Carol Hubble are with us today. My beautiful wife, Tawnya, is here, and some of the members of the Legislature might recognize Payton. She was a legislative page a few years ago. Today is Payton’s 16th birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Leave it to fathers to embarrass their 16-year-old daughters.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to welcome to the Legislature today, from Waterloo region, Sean Sullivan and his sons, Michael and Jack. There they are. Welcome.

Mr. Steve Clark: She’s not here in the chamber, but I’d be remiss if I wasn’t able to bring Hansard back to the riding. I want to wish my lovely wife, Deanna, a happy birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Husbands getting brownie points all over the place.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m delighted to welcome a group from my great riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. We have West Hill Collegiate Institute here. There are 42 students and their teachers Erin and Andria. Please welcome them.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I’d also like to welcome Keith Currie from the OFA.

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation. The government hired a company to build a bridge over the 401. One catch: The company had never built a bridge. The result: The company installed the bridge upside down, at a cost of millions of dollars for the government to fix shoddy work.

How did the Liberals react? They rewarded the company with another $39 million in government projects.

I wouldn’t be shocked if this is the norm for this government. How many other bridges have been built upside down? Mr. Speaker, it’s ridiculous that I even have to ask that question, but yesterday’s AG report is ridiculous in terms of what we’re hearing that your government has done. It is completely unacceptable. How many other bridges, how many other projects like this have happened?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin, as I said yesterday, by thanking the Auditor General for her report and for the recommendations contained in her report.

The Leader of the Opposition is raising a project obviously managed and completed by Metrolinx. I would say here today in the House, as I said in the media studio yesterday, that over the last five years Metrolinx has completed 275 construction projects. The majority of those projects have been completed on time and on budget.

I do thank the auditor, again, for her recommendations. I know that Metrolinx will continue to work hard. A couple of things to keep in mind, Speaker: In March of this year, about eight months ago, I provided the chair of their board with a letter of direction. We’ve received the report back. We now have a tighter opportunity to provide oversight with the agency. The agency is also deploying a new vendor performance management system and—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since I can’t get an answer on the upside-down bridge and the minister is trying to say that there is more oversight, let’s read the headlines. The headline today: “Infrastructure Incompetence.” I’ll quote one description: “the most spectacular item in the report’s cavalcade of nonsense, but not by all that much.” That’s because the Auditor General highlighted the ministry’s sheer ineptitude and their incompetence when it comes to paving our highways.

Asphalt should be laid for 15 years, but in Ontario it cracks after one or two years. Not surprisingly, no one is held accountable. The minister says everything is fine, even after one

section of the 403 cost $12 million to prematurely repair.

Can the minister explain why the Liberals allow our highways to crack and crumble? Does it have anything to do with the $100,000 in donations from these companies to the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to reiterate that I thank the auditor for her recommendations, not just as it relates to Metrolinx, but as it relates to MTO and the management of our construction projects.

I think it’s important to make sure that the accurate facts are on the record. Over the last seven years, which was the period of time during which the auditor was referencing some of MTO’s construction contracts, what we’ve seen, using the same objective criteria from seven years ago versus today, is that provincial bridges and provincial roads are dramatically improved in terms of their quality. That’s because our government has understood how critical it is to make sure that we are investing in transportation infrastructure in every corner of this province because of years of chronic underinvestment when that party was in power.

We’re going to keep working hard to make sure that we get it right.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the minister: no answer on the upside-down bridge, no answer on the $100,000 in donations. I know it’s their talking point to say, “I thank the Auditor General.” The Auditor General called your government incompetent and inept.

Let’s speak very specifically. Again, on Highway 403: paved in 2006; redone in 2008; redone again in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I did try to make an effort to allow you to kind of find your spot, and you’re not finding it.

I am also going to remind members that, even during the heckling, I’m not impressed with hearing names other than the titles or their ridings. So you’ve decided on your own—by giving you the time to do so—that you’re going to be somewhere I can’t tolerate. I may have to move to warnings right away.

You can give me any kind of face you want, and if it continues, you’ll be leaving.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, Highway 403: paved in 2006; again in 2008; again in 2011; and it will need to be paved again in the near future, at an added cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers. That doesn’t include the $686,000 bonus the company received for not doing the job properly. That’s their style of government.

How many other companies did the minister reward with bonuses for not doing their job? Is that the order of the day in your ministry?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, I’ve got to say there have been a lot of allegations that have been tossed around in the Leader of the Opposition’s questions this morning. I’m pretty sure those sleazy tactics worked for 10 years in Ottawa when he was a Harper crony, but they don’t work here in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, let’s remember something fundamental about that leader and that party. In my time here as an MPP, here is a short list of the projects that they voted against: GO regional express rail; LRTs in Toronto, Peel and Hamilton; BRTs in York region and Durham region; new streetcars in Toronto; Union Station revitalization; four-laning of Highway 69; the Morriston bypass—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture is not helping.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, as I was saying, that leader and that party—the 410 widening; the 407 phase 1 and phase 2; 417 upgrades in Ottawa. That party’s transportation policy announced killing the Eglinton subway and selling our 407.

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on the upside-down bridge that the minister supported, I’m going to try something else.

First it was the Environmental Commissioner who raised concerns about cap-and-trade, then it was the Financial Accountability Officer who raised concerns, and now it’s the Auditor General.

Yesterday, the auditor confirmed what we’ve been saying all along: Less than 20% of Ontario’s emission reductions will actually occur here in Ontario. The Liberal scheme would barely make a dent in pollution in Ontario.

At the same time—this is unbelievable—we’re going to send $466 million to Quebec and California by 2020. All that money is going to leave Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, why do the Liberals want to subsidize companies and businesses in California?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should talk to his critic who’s briefed up on this because, clearly, he has not been briefed up on this.

The cap-and-trade system and the 3.8—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The 3.8 megatonnes comes from the cap-and-trade system. An additional 9.8 megatonnes comes from the results of the action plan reviewed by economists. If you do the math, that’s the vast majority of reductions being secured over the next five years. That was the work done by David Sawyer. The 3.8 is the groundwork before you calculate the action plan, Mr. Speaker.

But then he’s the member who wants to put a $157-a-tonne price on carbon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: Clearly, the minister has not read the AG’s report, so let me share with you what the Auditor General said.

“Small reductions in emissions in Ontario ... come at significant cost to ... businesses and households.” The climate action plan “contains unrealistic or unsubstantiated assumptions.” Here’s another assessment by the AG: “Ontario’s cap does not actually control the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted” in Ontario.

That’s a stinging indictment. The Liberal cap-and-trade scheme has fatal flaws this government is ignoring. And the worst part? With this new agreement with the USA and Canada, not a single one of the credits purchased from California will count towards our emission credits.

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. Why do the Liberals want to force Ontario businesses to subsidize businesses in California, in Beverly Hills on Rodeo Drive, and do nothing to fight pollution in Ontario?

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if you don’t get the idea, I’m in warnings.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’ll try one more time. It’s not that hard.

Two numbers: 3.8 megatonnes achieved by the market. We understand that? That’s not me. That’s the—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: That’s the Auditor General.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not cap-and-trade. It’s cap and charade.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Read the report.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Speaker, 3.8 megatonnes achieved by the market mechanism: very clearly stated, David Sawyer’s, reviewed by everyone. All the nine large emitting industry associations chose cap-and-trade and support that; 9.8 megatonnes—the result of $8 billion of reinvestment in Ontario’s industry achieves that. And this is the difference between our plans: Yours is revenue-neutral. You have no money to reinvest in St. Marys Cement or Nova Corp.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: I asked a simple question to the minister that he’s not answering. I asked, why is the minister setting up and committing Ontario to a plan that sends $466 million to Quebec and California by 2020? The Auditor General has pointed out this will grow to over $4 billion by 2030. The minister will become the best minister of economic development that California has ever seen.

This isn’t the opposition saying this. This is the Auditor General. This is the independent oversight saying that your plan is flawed. Hear me: This does not curb pollution in Ontario. This does not fight climate change in Ontario. All it does is make businesses less competitive, and it doesn’t meet our emission targets.

Hearing what the Auditor General has said, will the minister do the right thing, take a pause and fix this? Because it’s clearly broken. Do the right thing for Ontario. It’s not too late.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, since I can’t seem to get him to understand two simple numbers, let me try another approach.

Every year, $42 billion in imported fossil fuels is purchased by Ontario’s families and businesses. The Environmental Commissioner says if we did not have cap-and-trade, those costs, just for the families alone, would go up $300 million a year. We will be dramatically reducing that $41 billion in annual expenditures, which is why all of the industry associations do that, because they are all fuel-switching to local, Ontario-generated clean energy, creating jobs in Ontario.

I know the member doesn’t understand that, because I watched him for 10 years, as a member of Parliament, destroying every provincial initiative to reduce emissions.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. On Tuesday, I met with Jean Bastien, mine manager, and a number of miners at Richmont Mines near Dubreuilville. These are hard-working women and men who have a love for what they do and a love for where they live.

The company is hoping to hire more employees, but the skyrocketing electricity costs are a big problem for them. They’re hampering the company’s efforts to expand and create more jobs. The sell-off of Hydro One is going to make things even worse, not better.

Will the Acting Premier do the right thing for jobs in the north and stop any further sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. We all are concerned about ensuring that the people of Ontario, everywhere throughout Ontario, have good-paying, high-value jobs. Certainly, the mining sector is critical as one of the many sectors of Ontario’s diverse economy. That enables us, frankly, to weather economic storms, including when commodity prices hit the global markets. It happened in Ontario as well, but because of our diversified economy, we were able to balance out and continue to prosper and still exceed Canada, the G7 and the United States in the last quarter.

More importantly, the member makes the accusation that by broadening the ownership of Hydro One and somehow making it a much better-run company, to be more efficient and to ensure that we deliver better results and reinvest them, to build more infrastructure, includeing, frankly, greater investments and stimulus in the mining sector—I just don’t believe the premise of her question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I also met with the mayor of White River as we visited the White River sawmill. Like all companies in the forestry industry, hydro is a huge part of their costs. Although they’re trying to expand and breathe life into the economy in these northern towns, they’re worried about their ability to do so because of the cost of their electricity bills, because those bills continue to soar.

We should be building on successes and supporting job creators, not stopping them.

Will the Acting Premier do the right thing for White River and for the White River mill and start getting hydro rates under control and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Charles Sousa: In order to make some of our industries more competitive in the marketplace, it’s essential for us to provide some of those supports, and that’s exactly what we are trying to do.

The reference to Hydro One, and the assumption, the presumption, that somehow making Hydro One a more effective company—which is one of 72 different distribution centres in the province of Ontario—would negatively impact an industry is not the case.

What is important, though, is the programs that we do have in place, working with NIERP and working with some of our northern programs to provide some of those supports to enable those companies to foster the return on their investment as we provide for more predictability on those rates. That’s what’s happening. We’ll work with a number of sectors to do just that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just businesses who rely on hydro that are worried. I also met with Sharon Hill, a retired nurse who is almost 80 years old. We sat at her kitchen table in the Soo. Her hydro bills have hit $300 a month. She heats with baseboard electric heating. She’s living on Old Age Security because she doesn’t have a company pension. She doesn’t know how she’s going to be able to afford her hydro bills for the rest of the winter.

After a long, full life, people shouldn’t have to worry about something as basic as being able to pay their hydro bills. Whether you’re a miner, a sawmill operator, a young family or a senior like Sharon Hill, your biggest worry is your hydro bill.

Will this Acting Premier, will this Liberal government, do the right thing for Sharon and people like her, get their hydro bills under control and stop making it worse by selling off Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We agree that families, especially those most vulnerable, need more support. It’s why we on this side of the House have been putting programs in place to foster and support that, and we’ve also done so with a number of industries in the north.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you consider a low-income family in the north or in rural Ontario, we’ve taken the following steps: We recently announced the 8% HST rebate. We’ve expanded the rural or remote rate protection program. That combines up to 20% improvement. We provided the Ontario energy support program for low-income families; that’s $600 a year in savings. We have the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, for $224 in savings to provide for some more support for northern consumers. And, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit can save an additional $1,000 a year.

I hope the member opposite, when she has the ongoing discussions with these families, provides them with the support and mechanisms that are available to them that we put forward to enable those families to have better support. We’re doing our part. We know we need to do more.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Acting Premier. People want to believe in the future of Ontario, but yesterday’s Auditor General’s report shows that the government is making decisions that are not about people. Hospitals are overcrowded. People are waiting nearly 40 hours for acute care that they should be receiving in eight hours. They’re waiting longer to see a family doctor, and the Auditor General said information about wait times for surgery is misleading.

How did the Liberal government get things so wrong, so messed up? How did things get so bad?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I said yesterday, I welcome the Auditor General’s report and I accept her recommendations as they pertain to our health care system. I welcome her report each year, just like I did last year her two reports that referenced our home and community care program. They provided me with important guidance on how to move forward. I welcome her comments and recommendations with regard to how we can continue to improve our hospital operations so that they better serve our patients.

But it is important to acknowledge the progress that is being made. I’m happy to reference in the supplementary some of the third-party data that we have that was made available. Some of it, in fact, was referenced by the Auditor General, which shows the improvements that have been made over the past number of years for wait times in ERs, for hospitalization and for the outcomes that we’re looking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, having a good future here in Ontario means having a good job to go to every day, but the Auditor General said that the government’s job programs are a mess. Half of the people who enter an apprenticeship aren’t finishing, and the second-career and employment services programs are helping less than 40% of the people who are trying to build a better life with a better job.

This government is letting people down. The Auditor General’s report is clear. They are letting people down on many, many fronts. When will this government start focusing on people who are trying to get a better job?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m going to continue to talk about the progress that we’ve made in our emergency rooms. For example, we had a report that just came out in the last number of weeks from HQO, Health Quality Ontario, which shows that despite an aging population, despite an increasing population and seeing more individuals in our ERs, we’ve seen significant improvements in the shortening of the wait times in our ERs right across this province. The Auditor General referenced yesterday that nine out of 10 Ontarians are seen and discharged from emergency in the province within the provincial targeted time. That was validated by the work that HQO did earlier, as well.

On other aspects of short times: Just in the past year—and this is information that was just made available by the Fraser Institute, so perhaps it wasn’t referenced in the AG’s report—wait times for general surgery have gone down by 13%. For elective cardiovascular surgery, wait times have gone down by 36% just in the last year.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While people are finding it harder to get a job and waiting longer for the health care they need, the Auditor General said that in the meantime, the government is spending more on misleading partisan advertising. The Liberal government needs to explain to the people of this province why people who need health care and people who are looking for work are at the bottom of the pile, at the bottom of the list for attention from their government. If the Liberal re-election campaign needs another $20 million for partisan advertising, they seem to be able to find the money in the public purse.

Can the Acting Premier explain to a person who has spent hours in an emergency ward waiting for a bed or who’s trying really, really hard to find a new job why the government is more interested in their own re-election campaign than in helping those folks get what they need from their government?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I take the analysis of the Auditor General very, very seriously. I take her recommendations very, very seriously. There’s no question that there is much, much more work to be done within our health care sector right across the board, including in our hospitals.

But it is important to acknowledge, when we’ve invested upwards of $1 billion specifically to reduce wait times in our health care system over the past, roughly, one decade, that we have made significant progress. The Fraser Institute describes us as being the best or among the best in terms of shortest wait times for selected surgical procedures. The Wait Time Alliance has given us straight As, as well, on their report card, in terms of having the lowest or near the lowest wait times in all of Canada.

We have the shortest wait times in the whole country in that important period from seeing your family doctor or nurse practitioner to getting to see the specialist. We have the shortest wait times in the whole country, Mr. Speaker. We have the shortest wait times in the whole country for CT scans, MRIs and ultrasounds.

There is more work to be done—there’s no question—but we have made significant progress.

Government’s record

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Rather than address their own incompetence, the Liberal government continues to attack the credibility of our independent experts. The Auditor General says their numbers can’t be trusted; the Deputy Premier says, “We take issue with the auditor’s accounting practices.” The Auditor General questions why millions in bonuses were awarded to underperforming contractors; the Minister of Transportation doesn’t think her perspective is “representative of what reality is.”

Well, the minister needs a reality check. The people of Ontario trust our independent, non-partisan auditor, not a Liberal government that is mired in waste, mismanagement and scandal.

Will the government stop attacking the credibility of our Auditor General and look into their own incompetence?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I thank the Auditor General for her report, and obviously we do need to work with the Auditor General and continue to work with her on our public accounts.

But I think it’s important to remind the member opposite that the Auditor General actually agreed with our analysis of our public accounts for the year just past. In fact, we used the numbers that the Auditor General prescribed to us. There is no disagreement over the numbers, and the auditor agreed with the accounting that we used in the public accounts in the past year. So to suggest that somehow we’re undermining her work is just simply not true. We used her numbers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Deputy Premier: The Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Officer have revealed that the government has subjected Ontario taxpayers to record tax increases, endless cuts to front-line services and years of waste, mismanagement and scandals.

Yet the Auditor General says the government somehow managed to spend $50 million on shameless, self-promoting advertisements, advertisements the auditor called “misleading.” While this government continues to make—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly. You will withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I’m quoting from the Auditor General here—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please be seated.

The member from Leeds–Grenville is close to a warning. I do not want that challenge of the Chair.

Carry on.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: While this government continues to make life unaffordable for Ontario families, they’re advertising on the taxpayers’ dime.

Will the government end their tax increases, cuts to front-line services and end their shameless self-promotion?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to remind the member opposite that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada and one of the few in the world that in fact has a government advertising—we have banned partisan public government advertising. We’re the people who did that, and you are the people who voted against that.

Let’s just look at your record. Between 1995 and 2002, the Conservative government of Mike Harris spent over $400 million on government advertising. That’s what you spent. I know you remember the days, Speaker, with those horrible, horrible ads—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

New question?

Government advertising

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. The government is spending even more money on partisan government ads. The Auditor General calls these ads misleading and points out that these advertisements are—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m trying to explain that you cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly. Even quoting somebody else using that language is not acceptable in this House. The member will withdraw.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Withdraw.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: These advertisements are “spending tax dollars to reinforce the partisan messaging of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Can the Acting Premier explain why she thinks government ads should be presenting their own messages, whose only purpose is to help the Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to remind the member opposite that our legislation, which is the strictest in Canada by far, actually bans partisan government advertising. It provides a clear definition of partisan advertising: You cannot use the name of any member of this House, government or opposition. You cannot criticize or support any member of this House. You cannot use any partisan logo—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A subtle reminder: We are in warnings and I will continue to use them. What comes after warnings is naming.

Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We have a very strict advertising regime, but what we do do is share information with the public. We have shared information with the public about vaccinations—

Mr. Paul Miller: What colour is the advertisement? Red.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s the first time I did anything.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Inches away from being named.

Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We’ve shared information about changes in the rules for child care and to help educate parents on how to distinguish between what’s licensed child care and what’s not licensed child care, and how you respond if you think there’s a problem in child care. Those are all things that we have spent money on—

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Everyone in this House knows that that government watered down the advertising rules in this province, and the auditor knows it as well. She has called you out for it and everybody knows about it.

The practice of using government-funded ads to bankroll the Liberal Party’s re-election adds insult to injury for the people of Ontario. Parents sitting in hospital rooms with sick kids have to watch commercials claiming that this government has reduced emergency room wait times. Meanwhile, in Kitchener–Waterloo, our local hospital is fundraising for emergency room residents to address the wait times.

Instead of looking out for Ontarians who are waiting for health care, this Premier has been solely focused on getting herself re-elected and using government money to hold onto power.

Will the Liberal Party pay back the money they spent on partisan advertising in this province?

Interjections.

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

President?

Hon. Liz Sandals: You know, it’s really interesting: I understand that the member opposite wasn’t actually a member of this Legislature when we brought in the original government advertising bill in 2004, the one that she claims her party is so strongly supportive of. But in fact, if you go back and check the voting record—

Mr. Steve Clark: Only to benefit yourselves.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re close.

President.

Hon. Liz Sandals: If you go back and check the voting record in 2004, the NDP voted against the legislation that they say they want to defend. And one of the members of the NDP caucus at the time is the current leader of the third party.

Now, the member who’s asking the question may not remember that. We remember it, and the public record of Ontario remembers that the NDP voted against the legislation they are defending.

Parental rights

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Attorney General. This Tuesday, family members of the LGBTQ2+ community across this province were inspired and moved by the historic passing of the All Families Are Equal Act. I understand that before the passing of this bill, many families who used assisted reproduction faced unnecessary barriers. LGBTQ2+ parents were forced to spend time and money to be legally recognized as their children’s parents. I have heard that this experience can be painful and humiliating for families. That’s not fair and it’s not right.

The Attorney General would most likely agree that having a child should be a wonderful time, not a time filled with uncertainty and anxiety. Can the Attorney General please tell this House how the All Families Are Equal Act will help families across this province?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for asking this very important question.

Speaker, people in Ontario value diversity and equality. All parents and their kids need to be treated equally under the law, and I’m pleased that the All Families Are Equal Act has passed in this Legislature.

This bill updates our laws so that all kids are treated equally by recognizing the legal status of their parents, no matter if their parents are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and no matter if they were conceived with or without the help of assistance. This legislation will update Ontario’s parentage laws to make the law as inclusive as possible. It is really that simple.

We’re doing this because parents should not have to go to court to be recognized as their child’s mother or father. And, Speaker, let’s make this absolutely clear: We are not removing mother and father with this legislation. We are broadening this legislation to ensure equality for all families in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, I’d like to thank the Attorney General for his response. I’m pleased to hear that our government is committed to ensuring that all children are treated equally by recognizing the legal status of their parents, no matter if their parents are LGBTQ2+ or straight.

Many in this House will recall that the law governing the legal status of a child’s parents at birth has not been substantially changed in nearly 40 years. A lot has changed since then. In the year 2016, there is no one way to start and raise a family. Family structures, just like this great province that we call home, are more diverse than they were so many years ago. This bill represents a historic moment in our province.

Can the Attorney General tell us more about the families and communities that helped to shape this important legislation?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The member is right: This is a very historic moment for our province. This Legislative Assembly stood on the side of equality by voting for this bill and showing their support for the LGBTQ2+ community and the values and diversity that are so important to Ontario.

Speaker, this issue was raised by families who are raising their children with love and respect and dignity—something that we all wish for and hope for in our families across the province. I personally, found it very disappointing that some members of this House thought and called our legislation “horrible” legislation when the legislation is all about making sure that kids have certainty as to who their parents are. It’s all about ensuring that there’s equality for all parents regardless of who they are. That’s what this legislation does: makes sure that our children are loved all the time.

I’m glad that members of this House voted in support of this historic legislation.

Health care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The PC caucus has consistently raised examples in this Legislature of how the Liberal government’s rationing of health care dollars is negatively affecting patients. The Auditor General’s report yesterday confirmed that wait times for surgeries have increased and the health of those waiting for life-saving treatment has been jeopardized.

Due to chronic underfunding, elective and emergency surgeries must compete for OR time. Some 25% of patients with critical or life-threatening conditions must wait double the expected time for surgery. Only 33% of neurosurgeries were completed within the ministry’s target times.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit his government’s policies are failing Ontarians and explain to them why they should trust this government’s plan?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the analysis and the narrative provided by the Auditor General, and her very sound recommendations as they pertain to all elements of our health care system, including hospitalization.

There is work to be done, and that is part of the reason why we’re investing a quarter of a billion new dollars this year in home and community care: so we can pull out some of those patients who are occupying beds in hospitals, who don’t need to be there, so that those wait times will be reduced even further. That’s why we announced nearly half a billion dollars this year—specifically for hospital operations this fiscal year—to allow us to address some of those capacity and wait-time issues, including for certain important surgical operations like hip and knee in the South West LHIN and in London, for example.

But we are making significant progress. By any objective measure, we have solid evidence that the investments that we’ve made in our hospitals have borne fruit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: The Auditor General’s evidence is showing this government is failing Ontarians. But it’s not just the surgeries whose wait times are out of control. The Auditor General notes that the government is also failing Ontarians on accessing hospital beds when they need to be admitted. Patients must wait in the emergency room for more than 37 hours to get a bed, often in the hallways or other unsafe areas.

Nine years of chronic underfunding and four years of frozen hospital budgets are hurting patients. The rationing of health care has patients waiting hours for life-saving surgeries. Operating rooms are going unused, and patients are stuck in hospital beds when they should be elsewhere. Ontarians deserve better from their government than having to wait for basic care.

Ontarians and the PC caucus have had enough of this government’s excuses, waste and mismanagement of our health care system.

When will the minister acknowledge his failings and end the rationing of health care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like if they had succeeded with their campaign pledge to cut 100,000 jobs in education and health care.

Speaking of wait times in Ontario, I know that the member from Kitchener–Conestoga asked yesterday about the emergency department at Grand River Hospital. He was concerned about wait times in the ER, and I’m happy to update him. In fact, the Waterloo Wellington LHIN is number one in all of Ontario, but the specific hospital—Grand River—has the shortest wait times for high-acuity patients in their ER of anywhere in Ontario. In fact, they’re beating the provincial average by more than three hours for complex patients, but they’re also beating targets for minor uncomplicated needs.

The Waterloo Wellington LHIN is number one in the entire province, has the best results ever recorded in Ontario history for—

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

Interjection.

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

The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Affairs and Food is warned.

New question.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim.

The Auditor General has confirmed what Ontarians already know: Under this Premier, it is getting harder to access the health care that our families need. After years of cuts and layoffs in our hospitals, people are waiting up to 37 hours in the emergency room. After years of bed closures, the auditor saw people on stretchers in hallways because our hospitals are dangerously overcrowded. After years of budget cuts to our hospitals, the auditor found long wait times for surgeries that are putting people’s lives at risk.

How can this Liberal government keep failing the patients of Ontario by forcing people to wait longer and longer for the care that they need now?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That’s why I remain so troubled by the fact that that party, the third party, didn’t support our budget that had $345 million of new investments in our hospitals in operating costs to help them deal with capacity issues.

But the member needs to at least acknowledge that we have third-party experts, third-party entities, that tell us that nine out of 10 individuals who go to our emergency departments are discharged from those emergency departments within the provincial targets, within the national targets. That was validated in her report yesterday by the Auditor General.

In fact, despite increasing population, despite increased volumes seen in our emergency departments, we’ve seen, just in the last five or six years, significant progress in further reducing that. That figure is for both low acuity and high acuity: Nine out of 10 patients are seen within the provincial targeted time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The auditor’s report is really an indictment of this Premier’s record on health care. The Liberal government closed mental health beds, leaving people in distress, waiting without help for months on end.

The Liberal government has squeezed hospital budgets to the point that the auditor says 60% of hospitals are deferring surgery to balance their budgets.

While the Liberal government claims to publish wait times for surgery, the Auditor General found that the real wait times are months longer than what the government claims. She says that the information is misleading for patients.

Why is this Liberal government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I don’t have to explain myself again. You will withdraw.

M me France Gélinas: I withdraw.

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

M me France Gélinas: Why is this Liberal government cutting health care, closing hospital beds and publishing wait times that are not accurate?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I know that their minister of cuts that they were proposing was going to shave $600 million out of the health care and education budgets. When they were in power, they closed 24% of the acute hospital beds in this province. When they were in power, they closed 13% of our mental health beds in the entire province.

When we look at third-party, independent analysis of our wait times, we have the shortest wait times from GP to specialist in the entire country. We have the second-shortest wait times from specialist to treatment, including surgical procedures, 20% shorter than the national average.

We have the shortest wait times for CT scans, MRIs and ultrasounds. Just in the last year, our wait time for elective cardiovascular surgery has gone down by 36%, and the wait times for medical oncology are down by 39%.

Access to information

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In 2013, our Premier set out a bold vision to be the most open government in this country. To that end, Ontario has released over 550 data sets and created an inventory of almost 1,300 actively maintained data sets, and those numbers do continue to grow. We’ve posted the mandate letters for each minister online, and we passed the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act.

As a result of this important work, Ontario was selected as one of 15 subnational governments to join the Open Government Partnership.

But we know that transparency means more than just posting information. It means giving the public opportunities to weigh in on government decision-making. Speaker, could the minister please tell us how her Treasury Board is engaging with Ontarians?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for this question. Welcome to her constituents.

Our government has been actively engaging Ontarians in an effort to create better policy, deliver better services and improve outcomes. Last year we posted our Open Data Directive as a Google doc and allowed the public to directly edit and comment on the directive.

We’ve opened up our procurement directive for consultations, to find out how we can make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to do business with the government.

Most recently, our government announced that we will spend up to $3 million in the 2017 budget to bring to life ideas suggested and voted on by Ontarians, an initiative of the Minister of Finance. Through open government, we’re making the policy creation process more accessible to Ontarians and are engaging society to help us co-create solutions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It’s very encouraging to see that the President of the Treasury Board has been reaching out to Ontarians and is helping them to engage with Queen’s Park through this kind of policy. Each week, one of the ways that I share information with my constituents in Kitchener Centre is by recording a one-minute video blog of the goings-on at the Legislature. This past week, I encouraged my constituents to get involved and submit ideas for the 2017 budget.

Building pathways for Ontarians to engage is half the challenge, but as elected representatives, we also need to play a role in informing our constituents of how they can make a difference. Now that we’ve taken stock of what Ontario is currently doing, could the minister please tell us what’s next for open government and how the Treasury Board plans to continue engaging with Ontarians?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As the member previously mentioned, Ontario was selected as one of 15 sub-national governments to join the Open Government Partnership, the only sub-national jurisdiction invited in Canada and one of three in North America. As part of the Open Government Partnership, Ontario has been co-developing initiatives to further enhance transparency with Ontarians. We asked Ontarians to submit their ideas online, then we asked them to vote on the ideas that had been submitted. Then we sent the top 15 ideas to public workshop sessions in Toronto, Ottawa and, to make sure we count everybody, online, in an effort to publicly refine and discuss these ideas.

Next week I will be announcing new co-created commitments to further accountability at the Open Government Partnership Global Summit.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister for Children and Youth Services. In yesterday’s Auditor General’s annual report, she highlighted many concerns about the minister’s lack of oversight of mental health services for children and youth.

One of the concerns raised by the Auditor General is that after audits in 2003 and 2008, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services has yet to make changes to ensure that agencies deliver mental health services to children and youth appropriately, cost-effectively and on a timely basis. After 13 years, will the minister finally act on the recommendations made in 2003, 2008 and this year’s annual report?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member for the question. We know that the majority of mental health and addiction issues here in the province of Ontario begin at childhood or adolescence. That’s why it’s so important to make sure that children and youth have timely access to supports when they need it the most.

I’d like to thank the Auditor General for her report and efforts in developing some advice toward government. Her advice is insightful and will ensure that we continue to prioritize the challenging needs of children, youth and families here in the province of Ontario.

We know that when it comes to mental health, it’s something that’s always changing. The pressures in the systems constantly change, but we’ve taken the Auditor General’s advice and we’re moving ahead to implement a new funding model for children and youth mental health services. We’re going to enhance oversights to hold service providers more accountable, and expand our use of data to access agency performance and improve quality.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: After 13 years and three reports, the Auditor General found that the minister is still not monitoring the delivery of services to ensure that children are receiving adequate treatment. It’s no wonder there has been a 50% increase in hospitalizations of children and youth suffering with mental health illnesses.

The minister’s lack of action on mental health has reached a crisis. These children have nowhere to turn. They need help, and they need it now. Use the 26 recommendations from the all-party Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Use the 11 recommendations in the Auditor General’s report. After 13 years, when will the minister act?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, I want to thank the member for the question. In 13 years, there’s a lot that’s changed in mental health. If we look at the province of Ontario 20 to 30 years ago and today, we know that the stigma around mental health is drastically changed. People are talking about this issue more. We know, 13 years ago and today, that even the pressures in the system have changed.

We’ve invested $100 million into new funding over the last five years, and we’re seeing a huge difference.

Community-based children and youth mental health agencies serve more than 100,000 young people annually. More than 4,000 indigenous children and youth access culturally appropriate services in their communities and more than 3,200 specialized consultations for children and youth in remote and rural areas through the Tele-Mental Health Service.

Again, things are changing in mental health, and we’re leading that change.

Government’s record

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. According to the Auditor General’s report released yesterday, only 47% of people who began an apprenticeship program in Ontario actually finished it. The number of apprentices at risk of non-completion increased after the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development implemented a monitoring strategy to overcome this very problem.

There is a shortage of skilled tradespeople in Ontario. We need young people wishing to start a career in the trades to be successful, so that they can stay here and build a future here in Ontario.

When will the Liberal government stop setting up these young people for failure?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I welcome the question. I thank the Auditor General for her remarks.

I can tell you, we are not setting anyone up for failure. In fact, choosing an apprenticeship is a very smart choice. We encourage more young people to think about apprenticeships when they’re considering what to do after high school.

What I can tell you, Speaker, is that prior to 2014, we were very focused on enrolling more people into apprenticeships. We were successful in doing that, but what we have to do now is focus on the completion rate. We are moving forward with a modernization of the apprenticeship system, where we need to better support students to finish. We need to support employers in a way that supports the completion of those apprenticeships.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Aspiring apprentices were not the only ones left behind by the poor performance of the government’s employment and training services. Only 14% of Ontarians participating in the province’s Employment Service program found full-time employment in their field of study upon completing the program. The government spent $1.3 billion this year alone on employment and training strategies, with very little to show for it.

How are the good people of Ontario who rely on these services supposed to get ahead? When will the government stop making things worse for Ontarians and invest properly in the services that they need to build a prosperous future here in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I find it astounding that the member opposite calls training programs a waste of money. These are really important programs.

Do we need to do a better job measuring the impact? Absolutely, yes, we do, and that’s why Treasury Board now actually has a centre for evidence-based decision-making, because we need to do a lot better job, not just in this sector but across government, in actually defining the outcomes we’re working to achieve, identifying those programs that are successful, and investing more where we’re getting the outcomes that we wanted and less where we’re not getting the outcomes. We need to bring that kind of rigour to all of our programs, including those in employment supports.

But I’m very confident that the organizations we have delivering these services in our communities are really committing to doing what’s best for young people, or older people, who are getting employment support.

Forest industry

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Speaker, the opposition often accuses our government of not paying enough attention to rural communities, and has made claims in the past that we are mismanaging our forestry industry. All too often, we hear accusations from across the floor that we are making lives harder for the people in Ontario. Speaker, surely they are mistaken.

I know that our government has been investing in infrastructure, such as roads and hospitals, in all communities, including rural communities. But the human infrastructure is also important. I know that your staff in MNRF act as tireless advocates for our land and resources all across this province.

Can the minister tell us what our government is doing to make sure that the everyday life of the people in rural communities working in Ontario’s forestry sector is in fact easier?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank the hard-working member from Barrie for her question. Making sure that we’re making life better for people living in rural and northern communities is a major priority for our government. Our government understands how important a strong forest product sector is to Ontario’s economy and the key role that it plays in over 260 communities across Ontario.

I encourage Ontarians to look for the leaf on Ontario Wood products and cut your own tree when shopping this holiday season. It’s why we’ve created the Forestry Growth Fund, which will provide up to $10 million annually for forest operations in our province.

Earlier this week, we were pleased to announce that we’re investing over $4 million into a sawmill in Eganville, which has consequently created and maintained over 100 jobs in the forestry sector, improving their everyday lives in the riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I encourage everybody to get out on December 6—

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Speaker, I’d like to thank the minister for her answer. I’m very pleased to hear that we are creating new jobs in both rural communities and the forest industry.

My father, Jim Torpey, worked in forestry with the then Ministry of Natural Resources for over 40 years. I am proud of the contribution he made and that your ministry continues to make to Ontario.

It’s comforting to know that our government is taking steps to ensure that the everyday lives of people in rural communities are better thanks to actions taken by this government, something of which I know the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke would be proud. I’m also proud of the steps that our government is taking to ensure the forest industry in Ontario is sustainable.

Speaker, could the minister please go into more detail about the forestry industry and why it is so important to Ontario?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank the member from Barrie for her supplementary question. I’m pleased to report that the forestry industry in Ontario generates $11 billion of economic activity and provides well-paying jobs for over 170,000 people in over 260 communities in Ontario. After announcements like the one in the Eganville sawmill, we’re ensuring these numbers continue to grow, something we’re very happy and proud of on this side of the House.

Our exports of forest products have increased each year since 2012, with a total value of our wood products exports topping $6 billion in 2015. Last year alone, our manufactured forest product sales increased by over $1 billion over the year before. I’m pleased to see these numbers and know that every day we’re putting more Ontario wood to work. Ontario’s forest sector will continue to grow, thanks to the work our government is doing.

Tomorrow, in Cambridge, the Minister of Agriculture and I are cutting—

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

New question.

Climate change

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Auditor General confirmed what we have known all along: The Liberals have no real plan to protect our environment.

The auditor revealed that this government’s own analysis of their so-called action plan only forecasts a third of the pollution reductions they’re promising. Instead, this government will be sending $2.2 billion to Quebec and California, and guess where the emissions will be reduced? Unfortunately, it won’t be Ontario. The emissions will be reduced in California and Quebec, yet this government still plans to take $8 billion from people and businesses in Ontario. It’s unacceptable.

Speaker, it is time for this government to be honest. Would the minister finally admit that their cap-and-trade is not about the environment, but instead a clever way to get into Ontarians’ pockets?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not enamoured whatsoever with those kinds of heckles, and it’s going to stop.

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First, I do want to thank the Auditor General. She made 15 recommendations on cap-and-trade. I think we’ve now implemented the majority of them, and the balance of them will be implemented in the next year. She has been very constructive and helpful.

On the numbers, I want to be very clear. The action plan and the work of David Sawyer, an economist, and experts—not my work—shows 9.8 megatonnes of reductions as a result of the expenditure of $8 billion. You may notice that all of the large emitting industries, from refining and chemistry to cement and the auto sector, supported cap-and-trade and are working on designing it. We have great confidence in the businesses of Ontario to meet those targets, and that $8 billion will be going back into the lives and pockets of Ontarians. When you buy an electric car you get $14,000 off—

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

Roger Parent

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I believe you’ll find we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence in recognition of Roger Parent. Mr. Parent was a Saskatchewan MLA who tragically lost his battle with cancer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all members to please rise in a moment of silence in respect for Monsieur Parent.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Deferred Votes

Building Ontario Up for Everyone Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 visant à favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario pour tous (mesures budgétaires)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 70,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1141 to 1146.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On November 22, 2016, Ms. McGarry moved second reading of Bill 70,

An Act to implement budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Patrick

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Jones, Sylvia

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 49; the nays are 44.

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 30, 2016, the bill is ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to election matters / Projet de loi 2, Loi visant à modifier diverses lois en ce qui a trait à des questions concernant les élections.

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

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1151.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On November 30, 2016, Mr. Naqvi moved third reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to election matters.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Patrick

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Jones, Sylvia

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLeod, Lisa

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McNaughton, Monte

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Soo

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

Zimmer, David

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 93; the nays are 0.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1154 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to rise and introduce a few people in the assembly.

First, I’d like to introduce a delegation up from Algonquin College in Nepean. It’s wonderful to see my friend Jean-Guy Fréchette here, as well as Egor, who is the president of the student alliance there. I want to welcome you both here today as we celebrate Bill Davis’s legacy and support Mr. Dhillon’s motion. Thanks for coming.

I also wanted to recognize a young man who used to work in my office. He’s from Nepean, and his name is Jordan Milks. He’s here today with a number of people from CIJA.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to rise and welcome Fred Gibbons, who is here from Northern College. The advances that we have done at Northern College over the years under your leadership have been absolutely amazing—I just want to say that publicly—as well as the support that we got from the federal and provincial governments.

Jim Madder is also here sitting next to him.

We’d like to welcome both to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: It’s an honour to introduce some college presidents this afternoon who are here for the Colleges Week motion that I’ll be presenting a little bit later on: Mr. Fred Gibbons from Northern College; Don Lovisa from Durham College; Ron McKerlie from Mohawk College; Chris Whitaker from Humber College; Jim Madder from Confederation College; Linda Franklin, CEO of Colleges Ontario; and, finally, Jennifer Horwath, who is the president of the College Student Alliance. Thank you for all the hard work you do with respect to each of your colleges. Thank you for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Today I’m very pleased to welcome many people here—I’m going to read their names off as quickly as possible—from many Jewish youth organizations, as well as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs: Ben Buckler; Riley Noik; Aedan O’Connor; Jesse Shkedy; Adam Sniderman; Ilan Orzy; Doreen Benou; Laila Persaud; Rachelle Belne; Stacey Starkman; Dr. Stephen Greenberg; Gaelyn Sale-Mussai; Jody Klapman, who is my friend and next-door neighbour—welcome, Jody. It’s your first time here, I believe.

There’s James Pasternak, a city councillor in Toronto; Ariella Siboney; Reba Silver; Isaac Bushewsky; Christina Mitas; Danielle Ravuna; Willem Hart; Zina Rakhamilova; Harold Brief; Ron Csillag; Jonathan Halevi, who is a well-known writer for a newspaper; Stan Fedun; Dani Peters; Gershon Hurwen; Joel Reitman; Shir Barzilay; Berl Nadler.

I’m going to stop there, and I’m going to invite all of you to come back another time so that I can read more names into the record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I never thought I’d witness a filibuster in introductions.

Member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. On behalf of the member from Oshawa, I’d like to welcome Don Lovisa, the president of Durham College. As you know, he’s joining us for the debate on Colleges Week this afternoon.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I just want to echo the welcome extended to our college presidents, as well as Linda Franklin, president of Colleges Ontario—and also students from Colleges Ontario: Cira Brijne, as well as Egor Evseev, president of Algonquin College’s student association in Ottawa—and my former colleague Jean-Guy Fréchette from Algonquin College, attending the House today.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure today to recognize Mr. James Houston from Sarnia–Lambton, who is receiving the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship from Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell later today.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: It’s my privilege and honour to welcome a gentleman who is objectively the best president of the best college in Ontario: Dr. Chris Whitaker from the great riding of Etobicoke North, representing Humber College, accompanied by the irreplaceable Jane Holmes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re getting brownie points all over the place around here.

Member from Huron–Bruce?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to welcome Mike and Mikayla to the members’ gallery, on the west side. Mikayla’s grandparents are from Teeswater, Ontario: Joyce and Lorne Millen.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I just wanted to also acknowledge my friend Anne Sado from George Brown College.

And I want to thank Linda Franklin and the team as they lead the transformation of our economy. This sector is leading on cap-and-trade and climate change. No sector of the public service is leading more on retrofitting buildings and cutting emissions than our college sector. They are truly awesome.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to introduce a teacher from Beaches–East York here, Rachel Hoday, who’s here with Presteign Heights Public School and a number of parents. Welcome to Queen’s Park. It’s lovely to have you here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Further introductions? If you haven’t been introduced, welcome. We’re glad you’re here.

Members’ Statements

Christmas Tree Day

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to rise today to remind members of the House and all Ontarians that this Saturday marks Ontario’s second annual Christmas Tree Day. This day is meant to bring awareness to the tremendous benefit the Christmas tree industry has on our province, not only to agriculture, but it also benefits the environment, tourism, employment and the economy.

Christmas Tree Farmers of Ontario have a new slogan this year. It reads, “We are tree farmers, and we take carbon out of the air.” It speaks to the organization’s mandate to bring awareness to the benefit of buying a real Christmas tree.

Let me briefly touch upon some of those benefits. Christmas trees are a renewable agricultural crop. For every tree cut down, 10 more are planted to ensure sustainability. Tree farms counteract the human use of fossil fuels and remove 13 tonnes of airborne pollutants per acre per year. Trees provide a protective haven for a variety of bird and mammal species. The edge effect created by a row of Christmas trees next to a woodlot or an open field is known to increase wildlife diversity. Real Christmas trees are completely biodegradable and return their stored nutrients to the soil from which they came.

Buying a Christmas tree is an easy way to help the environment and our economy.

On behalf of Christmas Tree Farmers of Ontario, I encourage all Ontarians to buy a real tree this holiday season and help support an important industry in Ontario.

Finally, I would like to thank Fred Somerville and Shirley Brennan from Christmas Tree Farmers of Ontario for their hard work and advocacy within the industry and toward the establishment of Christmas Tree Day.

Windsor Residence for Young Men

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I want to tell you about the Windsor Residence for Young Men. A friend of mine, Greg Goulin, saw the need for such a facility 16 years ago. Although our area has several places to house homeless young women, it was taken for granted that homeless teenage boys or young men could look after themselves.

Windsor was the only major city in Canada where there was not a place to get homeless male youth off the streets. It took 12 years to get it open, but they have had tremendous success over the past four years. The Windsor Residence for Young Men helps clients find pride in themselves. They’ve had a 66% success rate and have helped hundreds of young people get their lives back on track. Some have been reunited with their families, some have found employment, and many of them are doing well in school again.

They rely on donations, which is why they’re struggling to pay their hydro bills. Hydro costs used to be $300, sometimes $400; now they’re $600, sometimes $800. Charities such as the Windsor Residence for Young Men should be using their money to keep young men off the streets. Instead, they’re paying profits to the private investors who own more and more shares of Hydro One.

This government should be providing hydro rate relief to charities that provide services to low-income and vulnerable people instead of selling off Hydro One.

The Windsor Residence for Young Men doesn’t support homelessness. They want to end it.

Consumer protection

Mr. Arthur Potts: Today I want to talk a little bit about what an incredible week this has been for me. It reminds me of how lucky all of us are to represent our constituencies in the House, and the things we get to do to help regular people in Ontario.

This week, on Tuesday, the committee on regulations and private bills met to discuss my Bill 47, the protecting loyalty reward points bill. I want to take this moment to thank the Premier for her leadership, and the minister and all members of this House, the House leaders particularly, for agreeing to fast-track this bill through committee to third reading, which will happen next Monday.

This is an important bill, I believe, for consumers in Ontario. At the committee, we heard from stakeholders. We heard from individuals like Michael Judd, who represents the consumer experience for so many people who have tried to get onto websites, tried to get hold of Air Miles, in this case, in order to find out how many points of theirs were going to expire. They were concerned. They were angry about it. In the course of conversations with my constituents in Beaches–East York, we knew this was something we had to move on.

We could have done nothing, but we became the only province so far in Canada which is moving on disallowing the expiry of air miles. I’m very pleased that we’re taking that leadership.

This bill was the third private member’s bill that I brought forward which has that same theme of protecting consumers’ rights, from the tipping bill to stopping daycares from charging administration fees. Now, I know that everyone in this House has had experience with air miles, and we’re delighted that we have an opportunity now to put an end to it.

Community newspaper

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to share my sincere congratulations to the Citizen for once again achieving first place in the Canadian Community Newspaper Awards—the highest category in its class.

The awards celebrate the best in community publishing from across the country. The level of excellence that has been displayed by the Citizen in serving both the North Huron and Huron East communities is extraordinary.

This award really goes to show the level of commitment that this newspaper has put forth over the years in order to ensure balanced reporting and comprehensive coverage of its local communities. It is interesting to note that the Citizen has been nominated for the Canadian Community Newspaper Awards previously, in both 2014 and 2015. Its tradition of excellence was recognized once again this year, and it won first place in the categories of best all-round newspaper, best editorial page and best front page.

The Citizen team is one that works hard to keep people informed, and succeeds in its commitment to write on local issues that are important and meaningful. Upon reading the judges’ comments on the Citizen, what jumped out at me was this: “This paper has soul.” I couldn’t agree more.

Bridge rehabilitation

M me France Gélinas: My office was contacted by Mrs. Sherri Allan regarding a frightening incident that her family experienced on Monday while driving in Lively. As they were travelling south on Main Street, going under the first of two highway bridges, debris fell from the bridge, smashing a hole in the sunroof of their vehicle, with falling glass cutting their nine-year-old daughter on the neck. Thankfully, her daughter was okay. It could have been way worse.

They are not the only ones. I have been contacted—and I’ll read her statement:

“I too have been a victim of a rock hitting my windshield from the overpass. Last Friday my husband and I were hit by a rock on my sunroof....

“I had the sunroof replaced ... and it cost me $1,300!”

This morning, I talked to the Minister of Transportation about those two bridges. It was confirmed that they are scheduled for rehabilitation next year, in addition to the scaling work that is under way right now. He reassured me that his ministry would work with the local MTO office to make sure that the two bridges are safe to drive on, and that Main Street underneath will also be safe for all traffic.

I would invite, though: If anybody else from my riding or around Lively has had a similar incident with pieces of the overpass falling on them as they were driving or if they’ve seen an incident, please reach out to my office so that we can coordinate with the Ministry of Transportation.

Humber College